This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Workshop on tall building seismic design and analysis issues
Vmin P hR
Vmin MR,min = Vmin hr
Applied Technology Council
In collaboration with Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Prepared for Building Seismic Safety Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences Funded by Federal Emergency Management Agency
Applied Technology Council
The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation established in 1973 through the efforts of the Structural Engineers Association of California. ATC’s mission is to develop state-of-theart, user-friendly engineering resources and applications for use in mitigating the effects of natural and other hazards on the built environment. ATC also identifies and encourages needed research and develops consensus opinions on structural engineering issues in a non-proprietary format. ATC thereby fulfills a unique role in funded information transfer. ATC is guided by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives appointed by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, the Structural Engineers Association of California, the Structural Engineers Association of New York, the Western Council of Structural Engineers Associations, and four at-large representatives concerned with the practice of structural engineering. Each director serves a three-year term. Project management and administration are carried out by a full-time Executive Director and support staff. Project work is conducted by a wide range of highly qualified consulting professionals, thus incorporating the experience of many individuals from academia, research, and professional practice who would not be available from any single organization. Funding for ATC projects is obtained from government agencies and from the private sector in the form of tax-deductible contributions. 2007-2008 Board of Directors Patrick Buscovich, President James R. Harris, Vice President David A. Hutchinson, Secretary/Treasurer Christopher P. Jones, Past President Gregory G. Deierlein Ramon Gilsanz Lawrence G. Griffis Eve Hinman Steven Kuan Marc L. Levitan Manny Morden H. John Price James Robinson Spencer Rogers Charles H. Thornton
While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, ATC assumes no responsibility for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein. The material presented in this publication should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. User of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use.
Cover Illustration: Courtesy of Joseph Maffei, Rutherford & Chekene, San Francisco, California
ATC-72 Proceedings of Workshop on Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis Issues
Prepared by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 201 Redwood Shores Pkwy, Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065 www.ATCouncil.org in collaboration with PACIFIC EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER (PEER) Berkeley, California Prepared for BUILDING SEISMIC SAFETY COUNCIL (BSSC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) Washington, DC Funded by FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Washington, DC
TASK 7 PROJECT CORE GROUP James O. Malley (Technical Director) Gregory Deierlein Helmut Krawinkler Joseph R. Maffei Mehran Pourzanjani, John Wallace Jon A. Heintz May 1, 2007
to conduct a workshop in support of this effort. Mehran Pourzanjani. and John Wallace. permitting. regulators.Preface In October 2006. for their efforts in planning and conducting this workshop. Peter N. and Charles H. The purpose of the Workshop on Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis Issues was to solicit the opinions and collective recommendations of leading practitioners. This additional funding was allocated to the specific task of identifying and prioritizing seismic design and analytical challenges related to tall buildings. Jon A. ATC gratefully acknowledges the work of the ATC-72/PEER Task 7 Project Core Group. through the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences. Mork for ATC report production services. which were to be addressed by the eventual recommended guidelines. and researchers actively involved in design. ATC also gratefully acknowledges Claret Heider (BSSC) and Michael Mahoney (FEMA) for their input and guidance in the completion of this report. Heintz ATC Director of Projects Christopher Rojahn ATC Executive Director ATC-72 Preface iii . Thornton as ATC Board Contact on this project. Joe Maffei. This list will be used as the basis for future work in developing recommended guidelines for tall building design as part of the PEER Tall Buildings Initiative. based on the discussion of the multi-disciplinary stakeholders in attendance. The outcome of this workshop is a prioritized list of the most important tall building modeling and acceptance criteria issues needing resolution. and construction of tall buildings. including Jim Malley. the Applied Technology Council (ATC) began work on a contract assisting the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) in developing guidelines for the seismic design of tall buildings as part of the PEER Tall Buildings Initiative. The affiliations of these individuals are included in the list of Workshop Participants provided in Appendix A. ATC secured additional funding on behalf of PEER from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose of this work was to prepare recommended guidelines for modeling the behavior of tall building structural systems and acceptance values for use in seismic design. Greg Deierlein. Shortly thereafter. Helmut Krawinkler.
.. WORKSHOP FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................7 2.....6 Use of Workshop Findings and Conclusions..........7 2.... WORKSHOP PROGRAM ...............................................................................................2 Breakout Group 2 Report on Capacity Design Issues ...........83 ATC-72 Table of Contents v ..1 1...........................15 4..... ix 1.......................................................................................................................................................9 3......2 Workshop Description .7 2........1 1..........................14 4......................3 Identification and Invitation of Workshop Participants .....3 Breakout Group 3 Report on General Structural Issues ....................................13 4.............................................................16 4..5 2.................................8 3............2 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Tall Buildings Initiative ................Table of Contents Preface .......................................................... vii List of Tables ..................3 Issues in Tall Building Design ..........4 Breakout Group 4 Report on Shear Wall Issues ...............................................................................2 1.................................. iii List of Figures .....4 Workshop Purpose ..13 4.................................................................19 APPENDIX B PLENARY PRESENTATIONS .1 General............................. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................23 Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information ...14 4..........1 Breakout Group 1 Report on Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer Issues ........................................................................................................1 Workshop Planning ........................................................................................................................17 APPENDIX A WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ......................................8 2.2 Development of PEER Task 7 Scope of Work ................................1 Workshop Format and Agenda .........4 Collection of Pre-Workshop Issues .3 1.9 4......................................................................................................9 3.............................. PRE-WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................5 Prioritization of Issues .......63 Applied Technology Council Directors ............
.......... San Francisco................................ .......Workshop on Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis Issues...... 2007.. California.........11 ATC-72 List of Figures vii .........List of Figures Figure 3-1 Agenda ....... January 30.
...17 Lower Priority Tall Building Modeling and Acceptance Criteria Needs ..............................................................................................................18 ATC-72 List of Tables ix ...................................16 Intermediate Priority Tall Building Modeling and Acceptance Criteria Needs................List of Tables Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Highest Priority Tall Building Modeling and Acceptance Criteria Needs ............................
or buildings exceeding 160 feet in height. Questions have arisen regarding the applicability of prescriptive code provisions to tall buildings. engineering. The seismic design of tall buildings. and acceptance criteria appropriate for these unique structural systems. introduces new challenges that need to be met through consideration of scientific. and building occupancy result in Seismic Design Categories D or higher. and high performance materials. have been considering performance-based methods to assess the adequacy of these new designs. Use of alternative performance-based design procedures has led to challenges in the plan check and enforcement process. Recent trends in high-rise residential construction have resulted in structural systems that challenge the limits of current seismic design provisions and procedures. Building departments.1 General The development of seismic design provisions and construction practice has been based primarily on an understanding of the anticipated behavior of lowto moderate-rise construction. and use of currently available performance-based analytical methods has led to questions regarding the ability of these methods to reliably predict performance of tall structural systems. site class. analysis. committees of professional organizations and others have also been working to define appropriate design methods for tall buildings. ATC-72 1: Introduction 1 . The West Coast of the United States has been confronted with a major upsurge in the construction of buildings as tall as 1000 feet that involve a variety of unusual configurations. In extrapolating design and detailing provisions for use in high-rise construction. many structural systems have been limited in height or not permitted where combinations of spectral response acceleration parameters. innovative structural systems.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. and whether or not prescriptive provisions can adequately ensure acceptable performance of this class of structure. At the same time. with active input from peer review committees and advisory groups. and regulatory issues specific to the modeling. as defined in ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures.
Develop consensus on performance objectives 2 1: Introduction ATC-72 . Guidelines resulting from this initiative are intended to promote consistency in design approaches. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Charles Pankow Foundation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) (Lead Organization). Department of Building Inspection.2 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center Tall Buildings Initiative The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) is leading a multi-year collaborative effort. Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC). ground motion selection and scaling. facilitate design and review. National Science Foundation (NSF).Establish and Operate the Tall Buildings Project Advisory Committee (T-PAC) Task 2 . Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). acceptance criteria. City & County of San Francisco (SFDBI). and soil-foundation-structure interaction issues specific to the design of tall buildings. Major collaborators on the PEER Tall Buildings Initiative include (in alphabetical order): • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Applied Technology Council (ATC). and United States Geological Survey (USGS). and help ensure that tall building designs meet safety and performance objectives consistent with the intent of current building codes and the expectations of various stakeholder groups. to develop performance-based seismic design guidelines for tall buildings.1. called the Tall Buildings Initiative. modeling. The Tall Buildings Initiative includes consideration of performance objectives. Guideline development activities are organized around the following tasks: • • Task 1 . Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS). Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) of the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). California Geological Survey. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC).
These issues form the basis of the major technical development areas to be addressed by the Tall Buildings Initiative. special treatment of design ground motions is needed to ensure that these motions are representative in their damage potential. and regulatory issues specific to tall building design have been identified as part of the PEER Tall Buildings Initiative. Building concepts and materials. workshops. engineering.Review and validation of synthetically generated ground motions Task 6 . there is no consensus on how ATC-72 1: Introduction 3 .Presentations at conferences.Development of a design framework and publication of design guidelines Issues in Tall Building Design The following scientific. Performance objectives and hazard considerations. Functional requirements for tall residential buildings have led to new building configurations and systems that do not meet the prescriptive definitions and requirements of current building codes.Synthetically generated ground motions Task 5 . seminars Task 10 . there is increasing concern that serviceability for more frequent events should be considered as well. a building must be safe for rare (low-probability. While equivalence to building code minimum performance requirements is likely to be the basic objective.3 Task 3 . High-strength materials and specialized products are also being proposed to help meet the unique challenges introduced by these structural systems. For very long vibration periods characteristic of tall buildings.Guidelines on selection and modification of ground motions for design Task 7 . High occupancy levels. long-return period) ground shaking demands.Assessment of ground motion selection and scaling procedures Task 4 . and interest in re-occupancy following an earthquake have led to a reconsideration of performance objectives and ground shaking hazards. so that designs based on them will safely represent the anticipated effects of future earthquakes. including consideration of duration and long-period energy content. As a minimum.Input ground motions for tall buildings with subterranean levels Task 9 .Guidelines on modeling and acceptance values Task 8 . However.• • • • • • • • 1. and must remain safe for significant aftershocks. These include efficient framing systems with reduced redundancy as compared with more conventional buildings. associated safety considerations.
foundation. re-occupancy. Tall building instrumentation can serve multiple purposes. Criteria should appropriately address aspects of reliability of safety. and structure is expected to significantly affect the character and intensity of the motion that is input to the superstructure. Modeling. Interaction between the soil. although legally applicable to tall buildings. Specialized engineering procedures. and basic research leading to improved design criteria and analytical methods. consensus-based and backed by research and experience. and for data utilization following an earthquake. The issue is to define the input ground motions for tall buildings with subterranean levels considering this interaction. and functionality. 4 1: Introduction ATC-72 . and emphasize design requirements for. are needed. scaling and spectral modification of ground motion time histories to represent a design response spectrum has a large impact on the results of nonlinear analyses. especially at sites near the San Andreas Fault. low. capital preservation. Guidelines are needed for building instrumentation plans. and acceptance criteria for very tall buildings because the dynamic and mechanical aspects of response that control the behavior of tall buildings are different from those of shorter buildings. The selection. including rapid occupancy evaluation following an earthquake.to translate that performance objective into specific engineering demands and capacity checks in a performance-based procedure. Current codes. are for larger magnitudes and closer distances than are available in existing databases of strong motion recordings. analysis. scaling and modification. Earthquakes that dominate the seismic hazard in San Francisco. confirmation that building performance has met design expectations. Validated seismological methods can be used to generate ground motion time histories that incorporate nearfault rupture directivity effects and basin effects to appropriately represent the duration and long period energy content of these large design events. This indicates a need to establish rational procedures for time history selection. they fall short in conveying specific modeling. Ground motion time histories. Input ground motions for tall buildings with subterranean levels. and acceptance criteria. As such. simulation.to moderate-rise construction. are based on. Instrumentation. It is common practice to configure tall buildings with several levels below grade.
4 Workshop Purpose The Workshop on Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis Issues was conducted as an integral part of PEER Task 7. and construction of tall buildings. The purpose of this workshop was to help identify design and modeling issues of critical importance to various tall building stakeholder groups. The outcome of this workshop is a prioritized list of the most important tall building modeling and acceptance criteria issues needing resolution. and to establish priorities for issues that should be addressed by the Task 7 work. and researchers in attendance. permitting. ATC-72 1: Introduction 5 . all of whom are actively involved in design. based on the opinions of practitioners. and is related to the development of guidelines on modeling and acceptance values for tall buildings. regulators.1.
and implementation of nonlinear response-history (NLRH) analysis.Chapter 2 Pre-Workshop Activities 2. As defined in pre-workshop materials. Recommended criteria are expected to appropriately address aspects of reliability.1 Workshop Planning Workshop planning was conducted by the PEER Task 7 Project Core Group. safety. Task 7 Project Core Group members developed these initial issues into a task description and preliminary outline for deliverables that were distributed to workshop participants as part of the pre-workshop invitation materials. capital preservation. Recommended guidance is expected to cover such topics as stiffness. Planning efforts included an initial brainstorming of tall building modeling and acceptance criteria issues. permitting and construction of tall buildings. Assessment of uncertainties is deemed an essential part of this effort. reoccupancy. PEER Task 7 is intended to develop practical guidance for acceptance criteria and for nonlinear modeling of tall buildings constructed using reinforced concrete and steel materials. and functionality. hysteretic models. identification and invitation of leading experts in design. including initial introductory presentations and the format for breakout discussions. strength.2 Development of PEER Task 7 Scope of Work Development of the PEER Task 7 scope of work involved coordination with the overall Tall Buildings Initiative effort and an initial brainstorming of tall building modeling and acceptance criteria issues. The target audience for the eventual report and recommended guidance will be practicing structural ATC-72 2: Pre-Workshop Activities 7 . The PEER Task 7 deliverable is envisioned to be a report that is included as part of the overall Tall Buildings Initiative report. deformation capacity. 2. including capacity-reduction factors and determination of overstrength demands from NLRH analysis. Issues collected in advance were used to structure the agenda for the workshop. It is also expected to cover guidance on appropriate parameters for use with capacity design procedures. development of an initial draft scope for the Task 7 effort. and collection of issues from invited participants in advance of the workshop.
and target workshop content.4 Collection of Pre-Workshop Issues In response to pre-workshop materials. seed workshop discussion. It formed the basis of workshop introductory presentations and served as the starting point for focused breakout discussions. research. and code officials. Letters of invitation were sent to the final list of agreed upon invitees. In all. This input was used to set the workshop structure. resulting in over 500 individual tall building issues collected before the workshop. invited participants submitted more than 100 written comments. A brief summary of these issues can be found in the plenary presentations contained in Appendix B. A list of workshop participants is included in Appendix A.engineers and building officials actively involved in the design and review of tall buildings for which seismic design is important. and a call for input on additional tall building issues to be submitted in advance of the workshop. PEER Task 7 Project Core Group members identified leading experts involved in the design. researchers. along with a workshop agenda. 2. summary of the PEER Tall Buildings Initiative. and the distribution of participants was structured to be multidisciplinary. Many comments contained multiple design and analysis concerns on the part of the participants. The subset of these issues that rose to the top in workshop discussions are reported in Chapter 4. preliminary list of tall building modeling and acceptance criteria issues. and Claret Heider at BSSC. Michael Mahoney at FEMA. 2.3 Identification and Invitation of Workshop Participants Workshop participation was by invitation only. Proposed invitees were reviewed by members of the PEER Tall Buildings Project Advisory Committee (T-PAC). permitting. including members of the Tall Buildings Project Advisory Committee and the PEER Task 7 Project Core Group. 35 individuals participated in the workshop. 8 2: Pre-Workshop Activities ATC-72 . Workshop Findings and Conclusions. Targeted participants included practicing engineers. and construction of tall buildings.
These included the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) effort to develop their consensus document. (3) general structural issues. 3. (2) capacity design. Based on input received from invited participants in advance of the workshop. and a series of presentations on the pre-workshop issues collected from participants in advance of the workshop.1 Workshop Format and Agenda The workshop format was structured around an initial plenary session of introductory presentations. and shear walls) as well as a fifth topic of general crosscutting issues involving ATC-72 3: Workshop Program 9 . Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region. a discussion of the goals and objectives of PEER Task 7.2 Workshop Description Introductory presentations in the initial plenary session included an overview of the PEER Tall Buildings Initiative. and overall group prioritization of the resulting issues. a series of focused breakout discussions. a report on foundation modeling issues (from PEER Task 8). general structural. The workshop agenda is shown in Figure 3-1. and (4) shear wall issues. These included a report on tall building performance objectives (from PEER Task 2). The plenary session also included open discussion to allow participants to raise general issues of importance. discussions were centered on four topical areas: (1) foundation modeling/base transfer issues. capacity design. presentations were structured to orient participants to the specific modeling and acceptance criteria issues planned for the breakout sessions. Issues were grouped into one of the four main topical areas for presentation (foundation modeling/base transfer. identification of existing gaps in knowledge with regard to tall building modeling and acceptance criteria.Chapter 3 Workshop Program 3. Requirements and Guidelines for the Seismic Design and Review of New Tall Buildings using Non-Prescriptive Seismic-Design Procedures. Introductory presentations are provided for reference in Appendix B. In a second plenary session. and an overview of other activities related to the development of design criteria for tall buildings. and the City of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (SFDBI) effort to develop their Administrative Bulletin AB-083.
The four topical areas served as focal points for breakout discussions. documentation. Participants reconvened in a plenary session for breakout reporting. in which recorders presented the subset of pre-workshop issues that were identified by each breakout group as the most important needs in each focus area. During the second half of the discussion period. To establish priorities across all focus areas. discuss and clarify issues for common understanding. 10 3: Workshop Program ATC-72 . Results are reported in Chapter 4. participants were assigned to each breakout group for the first half of the discussion period. To ensure multi-disciplinary discussion among the practitioner. and peer review. Pre-workshop issue presentations are provided for reference in Appendix B. participants were permitted to move between breakout groups.reporting. Breakout groups were led by members of the PEER Task 7 Project Core Group. with one topical area assigned to each breakout. Each participant was allowed five votes for identifying and assigning priorities among the issues. and to identify the most important issues in each topical area for reporting back the overall group. Workshop Findings and Conclusions. Leaders were instructed to review the collection of pre-workshop issues with the breakout participants. and code official stakeholder groups in attendance. issues reported by the breakout groups were balloted by the overall combined group. researcher.
January 30. 2007. California.Workshop on Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis Issues. ATC-72 3: Workshop Program 11 .Figure 3-1 Agenda . San Francisco.
Information on calculated uplift at the foundation that could be considered acceptable. The following issues were identified as the highest priority needs in this focus area: • Guidance on how to model the podium (stiff base structure below the high-rise tower superstructure) including diaphragm stiffness. Information on how boundary condition assumptions (i. base-fixity) affect the design of the superstructure (e.. and foundation stiffness. • • • • • • • • • ATC-72 4: Workshop Findings and Conclusions 13 . Information on how much foundation rotation really affects the overall response of the superstructure. Appropriate tests for determining realistic geotechnical parameters. Guidance on how to properly address hillside sites with respect to the effective height of the building.Chapter 4 Workshop Findings and Conclusions 4. drift limits). potential unbalanced soil forces. and unsymmetrical basement wall configurations.g. including differences from the recommended treatment of below-grade podiums or basements. Information on whether or not current foundation modeling practices adequately capture tall building system behavior. Guidance on how to properly address podiums that extend above grade.1 Breakout Group 1 Report on Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer Issues Breakout Group 1 was charged with reviewing and discussing pre-workshop issues related to foundation modeling and load transfers at the base of the structure. Recommendations for performance-based equivalencies to code-based foundation design. Recommendations on whether or not foundation components should be required to remain elastic. wall stiffness.e.
Guidance on how to properly model components including. including hierarchies of behavior modes. Acceptance criteria for all structural systems and components used in tall building design. Definition of performance objectives that are acceptable to tall building stakeholder groups.2 Breakout Group 2 was charged with reviewing and discussing pre-workshop issues related to capacity design. including dispersion in those properties. Breakout Group 3 Report on General Structural Issues 4. and post-yield degradation. Guidance on unintentional slab outrigger effects that should be considered in tall building design.3 Breakout Group 3 was charged with reviewing and discussing pre-workshop issues related to general structural analysis considerations and acceptance criteria. initial stiffness. yield strength. Guidance on how to properly quantify properties of inelastic components. limit-state demands. The following issues were identified as the highest priority needs in this focus area: • • • • • • Guidance on how to include damping in structural models. and necessary margins. Guidance on modeling of P-delta effects and component deterioration. Guidance on capacity design of foundations. Guidance on capacity protection factors. 14 4: Workshop Findings and Conclusions ATC-72 .• Realistic dispersions that can be expected in geotechnical parameters and recommendations on how this information should be used in tall building design. Guidance on capacity design of diaphragms. The following issues were identified as the highest priority needs in this focus area: • • • • • • • A clearly defined capacity design philosophy for tall buildings. Breakout Group 2 Report on Capacity Design Issues 4. Specification of minimum strength criteria for tall buildings. Strategies to achieve capacity design for tall buildings.
• Guidance on how to properly model outrigger systems (systems with horizontal components that extend out to columns or walls that are not part of the main lateral-force-resisting core). displacement. Load combinations that should be used to determine the area of reinforcing steel in a wall. R-factors for Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) level analyses for systems using only concrete shear wall cores. Wall acceptance criteria for strain. The following issues were identified as the highest priority issues in this focus area: • • Guidance on flexure-shear interaction. • • • • • • • • • ATC-72 4: Workshop Findings and Conclusions 15 . • • 4.e. and force and ductility demands outside of the region. Information on calibration of structural models with wall/coupling beam component testing using frame or fiber elements. Guidance on gravity system compatibility with the lateral-force-resisting system. including slab deformation demands and column/wall force demands. Guidance on the determination of axial forces and their effects on walls and columns.. Guidance on direct-displacement-based design (setting of acceptable strain limits) in lieu of traditional force-based design. damage states at 10%.4 Guidance on what should be included in the structural model to properly simulate tall building behavior. Guidance on the length of the plastic-hinge region. including confinement based on strain demands. and strength at service level demands. including shear through the compression zone and wall geometry effects. Guidance on coupling beam performance at service level demands (i. rotation. including the effects of vertical acceleration. Breakout Group 4 Report on Shear Wall Issues Breakout Group 4 was charged with reviewing and discussing pre-workshop issues related to analysis and design of concrete shear walls. Guidance on effective initial stiffness for walls and coupling beams for service level and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) level demands. 20%. 30% of capacity) Recommendations on wall detailing both inside and outside the plastichinge region.
identified by a cluster of issues receiving the lowest vote totals. including shear through the compression zone and wall geometry effects. and foundation stiffness. The priority rankings of Table 4-1. are shown in Table 4-2. are shown in Table 4-3. Guidance on flexure-shear interaction. Issues were assigned to one of three overall priority ranges (highest.• • • 4. A clearly defined capacity design philosophy for tall buildings. although general structural analysis and acceptance criteria issues are in the majority in this range. Recommendations on wall reinforcing anchorage to foundations Prioritization of Issues Issues identified by each breakout group as the most important needs in each focus area were balloted by the overall combined group to establish priorities across all focus areas. this short list includes one issue from each of the four focus areas. and preworkshop issues that did not meet with consensus in breakout discussions are not reported. intermediate. or lower priority) as identified in the tables that follow. wall stiffness. and Table 4-3 include the top six 16 4: Workshop Findings and Conclusions ATC-72 . posttensioning. identified by a cluster of issues with the four highest vote totals. This list also includes representation from each focus area. 29 received at least one vote in overall plenary balloting. are shown in Table 4-1. Interestingly enough. identified by a cluster of issues with mid-range vote totals. and the contribution of the floor slab. The overall highest priority needs. Issues that did not receive votes in overall plenary balloting are not included in the priority rankings. Table 4-1 Highest Priority Tall Building Modeling and Acceptance Criteria Needs Need Focus Area Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer Shear Walls Capacity Design General Structural Guidance on how to model the podium (stiff base structure below the high-rise tower superstructure) including diaphragm stiffness. Guidance on how to include damping in structural models.5 Axial restraint on coupling beam behavior including kinematics. Summary information including these other issues can be found in the pre-workshop issue presentations provided in Appendix B. Of the 41 high priority needs for each focus area identified in breakout group discussions. Recommendations on splices in longitudinal wall reinforcing. Lower priority needs. Intermediate priority needs. Table 4-2.
and provides recommended acceptance values for use in design. Table 4-2 Intermediate Priority Tall Building Modeling and Acceptance Criteria Needs Need Focus Area General Structural Capacity Design Capacity Design Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer General Structural Shear Walls General Structural Specification of minimum strength criteria for tall buildings. Guidance on how to properly quantify properties of inelastic components. 4. the top six out of seven capacity design needs. These needs will serve as the basis for a literature search on the state of available knowledge. to be included as part of an overall PEER Tall Buildings Initiative report. including slab deformation demands and column/wall force demands. limit-state demands. Definition of performance objectives that are acceptable to tall building stakeholder groups. that outlines recommendations for modeling of tall building structural systems and components. including dispersion in those properties. subject to limitations in available information and funding. and Table 4-3 will be reviewed by PEER Task 7 Project Core Group members. and the top nine out of fourteen shear wall needs identified in the preceding sections. ATC-72 4: Workshop Findings and Conclusions 17 . This effort will ultimately result in a report. Guidance on modeling of P-delta effects and component deterioration. Recommendations for performance-based equivalencies to codebased foundation design. Guidance on gravity system compatibility with the lateral-forceresisting system. and collection of emerging research on modeling techniques and acceptance criteria applicable to the analysis and design of tall buildings. It is envisioned that this effort will address as many of the specific needs identified in this workshop as possible. Guidance on capacity protections factors. the top eight out of nine general structural needs. Table 4-2. and necessary margins.6 Use of Workshop Findings and Conclusions The prioritized needs identified in Table 4-1.out of eleven foundation modeling/base transfer needs.
30% of capacity) Guidance on unintentional slab outrigger effects that should be considered in tall building design. 20%. Information on whether or not current foundation modeling practices adequately capture tall building system behavior. Recommendations on whether or not foundation components should be required to remain elastic. initial stiffness. including the effects of vertical acceleration. Acceptance criteria for all structural systems and components used in tall building design. and force and ductility demands outside of the region Wall acceptance criteria for strain.e. Shear Walls Capacity Design Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer Shear Walls Shear Walls Shear Walls 18 4: Workshop Findings and Conclusions ATC-72 . yield strength. Guidance on coupling beam performance at service level demands (i. including confinement based on strain demands. Information on calibration of structural models with wall/coupling beam component testing using frame or fiber elements. displacement. and post-yield degradation. Guidance on how to properly model components including. Guidance on direct-displacement-based design (setting of acceptable strain limits) in lieu of traditional force-based design.Table 4-3 Lower Priority Tall Building Modeling and Acceptance Criteria Needs Need Focus Area Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer General Structural Shear Walls Capacity Design Capacity Design General Structural General Structural General Structural Shear Walls Shear Walls Guidance on how to properly address hillside sites with respect to the effective height of the building. and unsymmetrical basement wall configurations. Guidance on capacity design of foundations. Guidance on the determination of axial forces and their effects on walls and columns. Recommendations on wall detailing both inside and outside the plastic-hinge region. Information on calculated uplift at the foundation that could be considered acceptable. potential unbalanced soil forces. and strength at service level demands.. rotation. Guidance on the length of the plastic-hinge region. Guidance on effective initial stiffness for walls and coupling beams for service level and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) level demands. damage states at 10%. Guidance on capacity design of diaphragms. Guidance on how to properly model outrigger systems (systems with horizontal components that extend out to columns or walls that are not part of the main lateral-force-resisting core).
Suite 600 San Francisco. Los Angeles Dept. California 94103 Mark Moore Forell/Elsesser Engineers Inc.Appendix A Workshop Participants James O. 6th Floor San Francisco. 325 Davis Hall – MC1792 Berkeley. Texas 78746 Robert Hanson Federal Emergency Management Agency 2926 Saklan Indian Drive Walnut Creek. California 94305-4020 Joseph Maffei Rutherford & Chekene 55 Second Street. 385 E. Malley (Project Technical Director) Degenkolb Engineers 35 Montgomery Street. California 94104 Mehran Pourzanjani Saiful/Bouquet Inc. California 94065 Helmut Krawinkler Stanford University Civil Engineering Department Stanford. 160 Pine Street. California 94111 ATC-72 A: Workshop Participants 19 . of Civil & Environmental Engineering 240 Terman Engineering Center Stanford. California 94105 PEER Tall Buildings Project Advisory Committee Participants Jack Moehle (Principal Investigator) Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Ctr UC Berkeley. Suite 200 Pasadena. California 94720-1792 Marshall Lew MACTEC Engineering & Consulting. California 94720-1792 Yousef Bozorgnia Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Ctr UC Berkeley. 1221 MoPac Expressway. California 94305 Jon A. 2nd Floor San Francisco. California 90095-1593 PEER Task 7 Project Core Group Participants Greg Deierlein Stanford University Dept. California 94595-3911 Ray Lui Department of Building Inspection 1660 Mission Street. Moore & Associates. 325 Davis Hall – MC1792 Berkeley. Suite 500 San Francisco.. Inc. California 91101 John Wallace University of California. Heintz Applied Technology Council 201 Redwood Shores Pkwy. Suite 240 Redwood City. Inc. Suite 355 Austin. Colorado Boulevard. 200 Citadel Drive Los Angeles. of Civil Engineering 5731 Boelter Hall Los Angeles. California 90040 Invited Participants Lawrence Griffis Walter P.
California 90095-1593 Nabih Youssef Nabih Youssef & Associates 800 Wilshire Blvd. Colorado 80225 Steve Mahin University of California at Berkeley 777 Davis Hall Berkeley. Washington PO Box 34019 Seattle. MS 13-35 Sacramento. of Civil & Environmental Engineering 5731 Boelter Hall Los Angeles.John Hooper Magnusson Klemencic Associates 1301 Fifth Avenue. Inc. California 90017 Atila Zekioglu Ove Arup & Partners 2440 S. Suite D-202 Palo Alto. California 92108 Christopher Rojahn Applied Technology Council 201 Redwood Shores Pkwy. 1190 Brown Avenue Lafayette. Mail Stop 966 Denver. California 94111 Farzad Naeim John A. Suite 180 Los Angeles. Washington 98009 Constantine Shuhaibar Shuhaibar Engineers 1288 Columbus Avenue. Consulting Structural Engrs 2116 Arlington Avenue Los Angeles. California 92108 Nico Luco U. Suite 2500 San Francisco. Los Angeles Dept. Suite 240 Redwood City.. #201 San Diego. California 92612 Charles Kircher Kircher & Associates. Suite 3200 Seattle. WA Planning & Community Development 450 110th Ave. California 94549 John Price Curry Price Court 444 Camino Del Rio South. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 200 Sacramento. Suite 1080 San Diego. Flower Street. Martin & Associates. Consulting Engineers 1121 San Antonio Road. Owings & Merrill LLP One Front Street... 4th Floor Los Angeles. California 94102 Tom Sabol Englekirk & Sabol.S. California 94720-1710 Neville Matthias Skidmore. Washington 98124-4019 Graham Powell Graham H. Washington 98101 Moh Huang California Geological Survey 801 K Street. Inc. California 90064 20 A: Workshop Participants ATC-72 . Box 25046. California 90015 Steve Pfeiffer City of Seattle. Powell. Suite 110 Irvine. California 90018-9998 Gregg Schrader City of Bellevue. Suite 510 Los Angeles. California 95814 Leonard Joseph Thornton-Tomasetti 2415 Campus Drive. Suite 410 San Francisco. California 95814 Dave Hutchinson Buehler & Buehler Structural Engineers 600 Q Street. NE Bellevue. Suite 290 San Francisco. California 94303-4311 Eric Lemkuhl KPFF Consulting Engineers 3131 Camino Del Rio North. California 94133 Jonathan Stewart University of California. Geological Survey P. California 94065 Derrick Roorda DeSimone Consulting Engineers 10 United Nations Plaza. 1212 S.O.
Heintz (Recorder) Moh Huang David Hutchinson Leonard Joseph Breakout Group 2: Capacity Design Greg Deierlein (Recorder) Robert Hanson Eric Lemkuhl Joseph Maffei (Chair) Neville Matthias John Price Constantine Shuhaibar Nabih Youssef Marshall Lew James O. Malley (Chair) Steve Pfeiffer Breakout Group 3: General Structural Analysis and Acceptance Criteria Larry Griffis John Hooper Helmut Krawinkler (Chair) Nico Luco Breakout Group 4: Shear Walls Charles Kircher Steve Mahin Mark Moore (Recorder) Tom Sabol Greg Schrader John Wallace (Chair) Atila Zekioglu Ray Lui Mehran Pourzanjani (Recorder) Graham Powell Derrick Roorda ATC-72 A: Workshop Participants 21 .Breakout Group 1: Foundation Modeling/Base Transfer Jon A.
............................2 Summary Presentations on Pre-Workshop Issues Capacity Design Issues for Tall Buildings.........Appendix B Plenary Presentations B............ Joe Maffei.......................................41 Task 8 – Input Ground Motions for Tall Buildings with Subterranean Levels.................................. Joe Maffei .61 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 23 ...........................26 Seismic/Structural Design Issues for Tall Buildings..... Charlie Kircher ........1 Introductory Presentations PEER Tall Buildings Initiative....53 Element/System Modeling .....Walls........47 Base Load Transfer Issues.36 Task 2 – Develop Consensus Performance Objectives.....................51 General Structural Issues and Frames.28 An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region.................................... Helmut Krawinkler .........43 B......................................... Jim Malley.................. Farzad Naeim ........57 Advance Workshop Input ............ Jonathan Stewart ................. Jon Heintz ..........Other Issues............................ Jim Malley ................... Jack Moehle .. John Wallace..............................25 Task 7 Goals and Objectives......
Levels Cont. w/ Sub. Moehle Task 7 Workshop 30 January 2007 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 25 .Tall Buildings Initiative Project Advisory Committee (TPAC) Task 2 – Performance objectives Task 3 – Building pilot studies Task 4 – Synthetic ground motions Task 5 – Review synthetic ground motions Task 6 – GM Guidelines Task 7 – Guidelines on modeling and acceptance – principles and deemed-to-comply values Task 8 – SFSI – Task 8b – SFSI – Bldgs.PEER Tall Buildings Initiative Jack Moehle Principal Investigator January 30. 2007 Tall Buildings Initiative 9/06 12/06 3/07 6/07 9/07 12/07 3/08 6/08 9/08 Task 1 . LATBSDC Alternative Procedures SFDBI AB083 J. Studies Future tasks a – Development of design framework Future tasks b – Development of design guidelines Related activities….
coupling beams.g.PEER Tall Buildings Initiative Task 7 – Guidelines for Design. Including Modeling and Acceptance Values • Team Members – – – – – – – Helmut Krawinkler – Stanford Greg Deierlein – Stanford John Wallace – UCLA Joe Maffei – Rutherford & Chekene Mehran Pourzanjani – Saiful/Bouquet Jon Heintz – ATC Jim Malley . capital preservation.Degenkolb Task 7 Goals and Objectives Jim Malley TBI Workshop January 30. etc. etc. Including Modeling and Acceptance Values (Cont. Including Modeling and Acceptance Values (Cont. post-capping stiffness.) • Foundation modeling (with Task 8) • January workshop of designers. overstrength demands from NLRH. researchers. 2007 Task 7 – Guidelines for Design.) • Podium force transfer • Capacity design concepts • Modeling of various systems and elements (core walls. reoccupancy and functionality – To be developed within uncertainty assessment framework Task 7 -Significant Issues to be Addressed (Our first pass) • General structural issues (effective damping. modeling and acceptance criteria can be addressed! Topics will be selected (with the help of your input) could include: – Stiffness. regulators and other interested parties to identify specific issues to be addressed (This is US!) ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 26 . frames. podium force transfer.) • Not ALL topics related to design. cyclic deterioration.) • Additional topics could include: – Guidance on capacity design. – R/C and Steel • Priority on R/C due to amount of residential projects either underway or in planning Task 7 – Guidelines for Design. e. Including Modeling and Acceptance Values • Task Description – Develop practical guidance for acceptance criteria and nonlinear modeling. strength and deformation capacity – Hysteretic models for NLRH – Implementation in software for NLRH Task 7 – Guidelines for Design. – Considering safety.
Task 7 - Deliverable
• Report of findings. Tentative title is “Guidelines for the seismic/structural design of tall buildings”
– Sounds like the entire project report, eh?
• Don’t be fooled. Task 7 will only write our part!
– Target audience
• Practicing structural engineers and building officials involved in the design and review of tall buildings
– So, it’s a technical document, not a legislative document
– Tentative Outline (Presented by Joe Maffei)
B: Plenary Presentations
Seismic/structural design issues for tall buildings
TALL BUILDING DESIGN ISSUES Today’s tall buildings Research applicable to tall buildings
• • • •
Component tests Need for benchmarks on analysis assumptions Serviceability acceptance criteria Effective concrete stiffness
Minimum base shear
January 2007 Joe Maffei
Other issues Straw man report outline
RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE
TYPES OF OCCUPANCY
EXAMPLES OF CONCRETE-WALL HIGH-RISES
STEEL GRAVITY FRAMING
WASHINGTON MUTUAL | SEATTLE ART MUSEUM
B: Plenary Presentations
B: Plenary Presentations
0 Roof Displacement [in] ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 30 .2 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 5.8 0.2 0.5 -2000 -4000 -6000 ag (g) 0.0 20.8 -1.COMPONENT TESTS Test Facility and Test Structure 7 Story full-scale building slice Reinforced concrete structural wall NEES Large HighPerformance Outdoor Shake Table at UCSD’s Englekirk Structural Engineering Center UCSD Wall Typical High-Rise Core Wall 32 ft UCSD WALL vs.4 -0.0 0.2 -0.8 -1.0 t (sec) 15.0 1.0 -0.0 0 5.0 Time (sec) 10.0 5.2 0.2 0.0 Sf-vnuy-tr Acceleration (g) Base Moment [kip-ft] EQ2 EQ3 -17.5 -12.8 0.0 EQ1 Sf-vnuy-lgn EQ3: Essentially linear 20.2 -0.5 Nor-w hox-lgn ag (g) EQ4: Non-linear 1.0 0.8 -1.4 -0.0 EQ4 Nor-Sylm ar-360 -8000 -10000 ag (g) 0.0 10.6 0.0 -0.6 -0.2 -0.0 0.0 20 20.8 0.0 t (sec) 15.6 0.0 -0.0 20.6 -0.8 -1. HIGH-RISE WALL BUILDING 12 ft tw = 8 in tw = 36 in 60 ft RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Test Regime Testing at the NEES@UCSD Large High-Performance Outdoor Shake Table between October 2005 and January 2006 Structure tested under increase intensity historical earthquake records and with low-intensity band-clipped white noise in between earthquake tests 1.0 1.4 ag (g) 0.4 0.0 t (sec) 15.0 0.4 0.4 -0.0 5.0 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 -2.5 2.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 17.5 12.0 10.2 0.5 -7.0 t (sec) 15.6 0.0 -0.6 0.6 -0.5 7.6 -0.
shake table and surrounding soil – – – – – DC Coupled Accelerometers Displacement transducers Strain gauges Load cells Oil pressure transducers Building’s Response to Sylmar Building’ Earthquake EQ4 EQ4 Performance levels anticipated were met: – – – – – Cosmetic damage at the base of the wall Reinforcement strains reached 2. at the roof ) First time use of 50Hz.EQ4: EQ4: Test EQ4 PGA = 0.1% Residual crack widths less than 1/20th of an inch Negligible residual displacements (1/2 in. real-time GPS displacement sensors 17 videos feeds streamed through NEEScentral The building slice could perhaps not be immediately “occupied” but only required minimum repairs UCSD Wall Blind Prediction Results .Shear Force Envelope First 4 teams of each category 7 6 5 Floor 4 3 2 1 Measured Elastic ETABS Model Z 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 X Y Shear Force (kips) RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 31 . 3 mm resolution.7% Peak roof-drift ratio was 2.93g Sensors 600+ sensors deployed on the building.EQ3 .
0 T 4.9 1.2 S1 EFFECT OF EQ 30-7 ON SPECTRA SHAPE EFFECT ON SPECTRAL DISPLACEMENT DEMAND 100 1.1Ec EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS Roof Displacement [in] 4 2 0 40 -2 -4 -6 -8 45 50 55 60 UCSD Test ETABS Time [s] RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE MINIMUM BASE SHEAR 0.08 1997 UBC ASCE 7-02 MINIMUM BASE SHEAR 0.6 0.0 5.0 RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE 0.3 0.0 3.2 80 Sd.12 Seattle SF Salt Lake 0.0 0.4 UBC EQ.EQ3 8 6 Wall: Eeff = 0.0 6.00 0.2Ec Slab: Eeff = 0.0 1.04 ASCE 7-05 0.0 2. sec RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 32 .0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 T. inches Sa 60 40 20 Eq.8 D A E 0. 30-7 0 0. 30-7 CODE SPECTRUM 0.
08 0. S1 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.04 ASCE 7-05 0.0 1 2 3 Period.S.min = Vmin hr LIMIT P-∆ REDUCTION IN LATERAL CAPACITY V P-∆ OTHER DESIGN ISSUES Vmin MCE drift RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 33 .3 0.6 0.2 S1 DISPLACEMENT DEMAND VS. inches Vmin T=5 P hR T=4 Vmin S1 MR.4 0.8 1 ASCE 7-05 Soil type B Seattle SF Salt Lake P-∆ EFFECT ON LATERAL CAPACITY ∆ T=6 Sd.00 0.9 1. Sd (in) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 Imperial Valley EQ Landers EQ Northridge EQ Tabas EQ 1997 UBC R. T (seconds) 4 5 6 0.12 Seattle SF Salt Lake 90 80 Spectral Displacement.100 Imperial Valley EQ MINIMUM BASE SHEAR 0.6 0.2 0. 1997 UBC Equation 30-7 0.
Use method (b). fy = 70 ksi MCE analysis directly gives overstrength demands on elements designed to remain elastic Model element strengths at a gravity load of 1.11.g..5. e.NLRH INPUT NLRH ANALYSIS AT MCE Use expected strengths of materials. with additional consideration of bottom and integrity reinforcement RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE TASK GROUP 7 DELIVERABLE ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 34 .0D + Lexp GRN 180 7 horizontal ground motion pairs 14 response-history runs GRN 180 GRN 270 Include inherent torsion but not accidental torsion RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE GRN 270 RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE MAT SLAB SHEAR REINFORCEMENT Deep unreinforced sections have reduced Vc DETAIL GRAVITY SYSTEMS FOR INDUCED DRIFT Design slab-column connections for ACI 2005 §21.
Task 7 report? • • • • Introduction. scope. including background. system design issues.1 CONCLUSIONS A large number of important design issues. by topic 5 WHAT STIFFNESS ARE WE MODELING? 475y linear response Reduction by Reff 475y NL response Vmin 2475y NL response Roof Displacement ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 35 . or component issues. podium effects. Need for benchmarking of analysis assumptions. relationship to other tasks General discussion of seismic design issues of particular to tall buildings (overview of things like wind versus seismic. long period. Modeling and acceptance issues intertwined with design issues. Assume 6 of these times 20 pages each 11 Annotated bibliography on other issues. either NLRH issues. (For now) limited scope and funding of Task 7. objectives. others?] Use of NLRH analysis (does not include selection and scaling of records. poor applicability of pushover) Preliminary design considerations for selected building types [eg concrete wall. which is a separate task) 8 2 5 3 4 15 5 120 “issue papers” “guidelines” “design recommendations” “provisions” 5-10 Other selected issues in tall building design.
performancebased approach for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings SCOPE: Limited to tall buildings (total height of 160 feet or more). CA Mr. CA Dr. Palo Alto. Jack Moehle. URS Corporation. University of California. SCOPE.1 of the 2002 City of Los Angeles Building Code (2002-LABC)]. Elstner Associates. JUSTIFICATION. Los Angeles. URS Corporation. Structural Engineer. Helmut Krawinkler. John Wallace. Oakland. Seattle. Stanford University.10. CA Prof. CA Mr. Ron Klemencic. Gary Searer. Mike Mehrain. CA Prof. Structural Engineer. CA AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE LOS ANGELES REGION A Consensus Document December 2005 Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE FOR SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE LOS ANGELES REGION A Consensus Document December 2005 Link to the Document Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council 1. and the FEMA-356 documents. Professor Emeritus. Berkeley.Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council The Council expresses its gratitude to the following distinguished experts who also contributed to the development of this document: Mr. Los Angeles. Pasadena. JUSTIFICATION: Code’s Alternative Analysis Clause [Section 16. Emeryville. Paul Somerville. METHODOLOGY: Essentially a performance based approach which embodies the performance goals provided in: The 1999 SEAOC BlueBook A number of latest provisions from the ASCE 7-05. Graham Powell. INTENT. Joe Maffei. CA Dr. Principal Structural Engineer. METHODOLOGY: Performance Based Approach with three levels of analysis. Principal Seismologist. WA Prof. Three levels of ground motion and performance are considered: Serviceability Life-Safety Collapse Prevention ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 36 . President. the upcoming 2006-IBC. Berkeley. Berkeley and Director of PEER Center. University of California. Janney. Wiss. Berkeley. University of California. Magnusson Klemencic Associates.29. Rutherford & Chekene. AND METHODOLOGY INTENT: Provide an alternate. CA Prof.
00 5. Joyner and Fumal (1997) Sadigh (1997) ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 37 . Joyner and Fumal (1997) Sadigh (1997) Figure C.2-1. This evaluation is not contained in current code requirements. Evaluation is performed using nonlinear response history analyses. Standard code load combinations and material code standards are used. but more stringent than SEAOC PBD Framework (1999) MCE level event is consistent with ASCE 7-05 Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council 2.00 2.475 year return period) with a deterministic limit.Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council SERVICEABILITY: The service level design earthquake is taken as an event having a 50% probability of being exceeded in 30 years (43 year return period).50 5.60 1.80 1.00 0. 1.00 8. The prescriptive connection detailing conforms to the requirements of the code. 1.40 1.35 0.20 0.) Figure C.00 1. This is larger than the current 2002-LABC MCE event which has a return period of 975 years.00 3.50 7.) Period (sec. The objective is to produce a structure that remains serviceable following such event. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council COLLAPSE-PREVENTION: The collapse-prevention level earthquake is taken as an event having a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (2.00 0.50 8.10 0. For this level of earthquake.00 3.2-1.00 7. Mean values of spectral acceleration obtained from three attenuation relations.20 2500 Year 2000 Year 980 Year 475 Year 100 Year 75 Year 50 Year 25 Year Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council 0. 2.00 5. The life-safety level design earthquake is taken as an event having a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (475 year return period). Demands are checked against both structural members of the lateral force resisting system and other structural members.80 0.20 0. the building structural members are designed without a reduction factor (R = 1). Abrahamson and Silva (1997) Boore. For this level.00 3. LIFE-SAFETY: This is a code-level seismic evaluation. Abrahamson and Silva (1997) Boore.30 0.05 0.00 Period (sec.60 SA (g) 0. 3. 2.40 2500 Year 2000 Year 980 Year 475 Year 100 Year 75 Year 50 Year 25 Year 0.00 7. Mean values of spectral acceleration obtained from three attenuation relations.00 0. 3. building code requirements are strictly followed with a small number of carefully delineated exceptions and modifications.00 4.00 6.00 4. Nonstructural components are not evaluated at this level.15 0.00 6.00 1.40 0.25 SA (g) 1.50 4.50 6. SEAOC PBD Framework (1999) Our procedure is consistent with.
Site-specific elastic design response spectrum Mathematical Model 3D mathematical model Description of Analysis & Design Procedure Elastic response spectrum analysis Structural analysis and design shall be performed in accordance with all relevant 2002-LABC provisions except for the provisions specifically excluded in Section 2. Note that the design spectral values shall not be reduced by the quantity R. Step 1: Serviceability Requirement Description of Analysis Procedure Elastic response spectrum analysis At least 90 percent of the participating mass included Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) method used.) 5. Abrahamson and Silva (1997) Boore. Mean values of spectral displacement (inches) from three attenuation relations.0D + 0.00 0.0).5L + 0. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Step 1: Serviceability Requirement Acceptability Criteria None of the members exceed the applicable LRFD limits for steel members or USD limits for concrete members (φ = 1.00 Period (sec.00 7.0 Material Strength SD (in.1. Inclusion of accidental torsion is not required.00 1 2 3 LDP2 LDP2 NDP3 1.00 Figure C.00 4.00 2.0D + 0. Joyner and Fumal (1997) Sadigh (1997) Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Step 1: Serviceability Requirement Ground Motion: 50% probability of being exceeded in 30 years Not be reduced by the quantity R. 2.0 Per 2002-LABC N/A Expected Specified Expected 30.00 6. Expected material strengths may be used.00 8.00 50.0Ex + 0.00 2500 Year 2000 Year 980 Year 475 Year 100 Year 75 Year 50 Year 25 Year Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Summary of Basic Requirements Evaluation Step Ground Motion Intensity1 50/30 10/50 2/505 Type of Analysis Type of Mathematical Model 3D4 3D4 3D4 Reduction Factor (R) Accidental Torsion Considered ? No Yes No.00 5 probability of exceedance in percent / number of years nonlinear dynamic procedure with deterministic limit per ASCE 7-05 and 2006-IBC linear dynamic procedure three-dimensional 0. 3.00 1. 2 4 60.4 of this document. 1. Acceptability Criteria The structure shall satisfy all relevant 2002-LABC requirements except the provisions explicitly identified in Section 2.2.Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council 70.4 of this document ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 38 . The following load combinations shall be used: 1.0 Per 2002-LABC 1. unless a different value is shown to be consistent with the anticipated structural behavior at the intensity of shaking established for the site. Step 2: Life-Safety Requirement Ground Motion: Code DBE Reduced by the quantity R per Code.2-1. Site-specific elastic design response spectrum The spectrum shall be developed for 5% damping.3Ex + 1.5L + 1.) 40.0Ey (1) (2) Mathematical Model 3D mathematical model required The stiffness properties used in the analysis and general mathematical modeling shall be in accordance with 2002LABC Section 1630. Response Parameters shall not be reduced.00 20.00 1 3 10.3Ey 1.00 Material Reduction Factors (φ) 1.00 3.
0Ey .5L 0. Instead in Step 2.1. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Step 3: Collapse-Prevention Requirement Acceptability Criteria Collector elements shall be provided and must be capable of transferring the seismic forces originating in other portions of the structure to the element providing the resistance to those forces. shall be included in the mathematical model. or a particular story. as provided by 2002-LABC formula 30-3 is set to unity (ρ = 1. Inclusion of accidental torsion is not required. Ω0. Various degradations must be modeled if relevant Exception invoked. If FEMA-356 Primary Collapse Prevention deformation capacities are exceeded. the seismic base shear (V) shall not be taken less than 0.0D + + + + 0.1. 2. the structure shall be analyzed for the effects of the following loads and excitations: 1.0Ey + 1.0Ey . Use expected strength considering material overstrength.8 Z N V I V= W R V = 0.0).0D 1.1.5L + 1. Acceptability Criteria Capacity > Demand Demand = Average of 7. Capacity = FEMA-356 Primary CP values for NL response unless Exception invoked. Static 2002-LABC formulas 30-6 and 30-7 do not apply.025 W ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 39 . The seismic force amplification factor. Components not included in the seismic force resisting system shall be deemed acceptable if their deformation does not exceed the corresponding Secondary Life Safety values published in FEMA356 for nonlinear response procedures. V = 0. The hysteretic behavior of elements shall be modeled consistent with suitable laboratory test data or applicable modeling parameters for nonlinear response analyses published in FEMA-356.0Ex . in 2002-LABC formula 30-2 is set to unity (Ω0 = 1. EXCLUSIONS For buildings analyzed and designed according to the provisions of this document: 1.Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Step 3: Collapse-Prevention Requirement Ground Motion: ASCE 7-05 MCE 7 Pairs or more time-histories required Selection and scaling according to ASCE 7-05 Mathematical Model 3D nonlinear model P-∆ effects included All elements and components that in combination represent more than 15% of the total initial stiffness of the building.0Ey (1) (2) (3) (4) Step 3: Collapse-Prevention Requirement Acceptability Criteria EXCEPTION Larger deformation capacities may be used only if substantiated by appropriate laboratory tests and approved by the Peer Review Panel and the Building Official.0D 1. and seismic deformation demands identified in this section.0Ex + 1. The Reliability/Redundancy Factor.0Ex + 1.1. stiffness degradation and hysteretic pinching shall be considered and base shear capacity of the structure shall not fall below 90% of the base shear capacity at deformations corresponding to the FEMA-356 Primary Collapse Prevention limits.025W where W is the effective seismic weight.0D 1.11 Ca I W 0.0). Every structural component not included in the seismic force–resisting system shall be able to resist the gravity load effects.5L 0. ρ.5L 0. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Step 3: Collapse-Prevention Requirement Description of Analysis Procedure: 3D nonlinear response history analyses For each ground motion pair.0Ex . seismic forces. strength degradation. 3.
Method A (2002-LABC Sec. 6.2 does not apply.Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council EXCLUSIONS For buildings analyzed and designed according to the provisions of this document: Questions? 4. 5.1) does not apply.020/T1/3 specified in 2002-LABC 1622.214.171.124. The limit on calculated story drift of 0. 16-N do not apply. Results obtained by Method B or more advanced analysis are not bound by Method A. 1630. The height limitations of 2002-LABC Table ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 40 .
Task 2 Goals/Objectives PEER Tall Buildings Initiative • The goal of this task is to develop seismic performance objectives appropriate for tall buildings that are the subject of this initiative.Performance Objectives 2 Task 2 Researchers • Mr. PE • Mr. – Social Impacts – land use/planning expert – Economic Impacts – urban economist January 30. Nabih Youssef. BOMA reps. William Holmes. SE January 30.5 2.Performance Objectives ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 41 . 2007 PEER Tall Building Project Task 2 . SE Principal Rutherford & Chekene San Francisco Principal Kircher & Associates Palo Alto Chief Building Inspector City and County of San Francisco Department of Building Inspection Professor Emeritus University of Southern California Los Angeles President Nabih Youssef & Associates Los Angeles 3 Task 2 Approach – Engage Stakeholders • Identify and interview stakeholders individually • Hold workshop (with stakeholders and others) • Stakeholders (by perspective): – Legal (regulatory) – San Francisco attorney – Legal (condo) – private practice attorney – Financial (insurance) – industry representative – Financial (lenders) – mortgage banker – Owners (short-term) – developer representative – Owners (long-term) – condo association.1 2.2 Finalize Work Plan (Core Group) Obtain Input from Stakeholders – Develop Background Material – Conduct Interviews 2. • The primary occupancy of the buildings will be residential but other occupancies may be considered if different objectives appear to be indicated. 2007 PEER Tall Building Project Task 2 . 2007 PEER Tall Building Project Task 2 .Performance Objectives 4 • Dr.Appropriate performance (normal of better than Code – If so. 2007 January 30. Task 2 – Develop Consensus Performance Objectives Charlie Kircher for Bill Holmes January 30.4 2.Performance Objectives 6 January 30.Performance Objectives Task 2 Work Plan and Schedule Subtask 2. 2007 PEER Tall Building Project Task 2 . William Petak • Mr.6 Formulate Straw-man Performance Objective Hold Stakeholders Workshop and Other Review Develop Recommended Performance Objective Prepare Final Report Task 2 Background Material • Building Code Performance Overview (Petak) • Tall Building Damage and Loss Scenarios (Kircher) – Core-wall Condominium Buildings (Kircher) – Steel Office Buildings (Youssef) Schedule • Done • Mid-February – Done – Underway • Late February (01-12-07) • March 14 (02-02-07) • Mid-April (03-02-07) • Mid-May (03-30-07) 5 • Interview Outline and Response Form (Holmes) – Describe project background (PEER research project) – Discuss background material (Code safety objectives) – Ask questions . • The performance objectives shall be described in formats to be useful both to the general public and to researchers and engineers performing design and analysis. 2007 PEER Tall Building Project Task 2 . Lawrence Kornfield • Prof. Charles Kircher. what’s it worth)? – Ask questions – Interviewers perspective (personal or professional perspective)? – Prepare Interview Summary January 30.3 2.
of Bldgs in each Structural Damage State Hypothetical Performance None/Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Collapse Level A 20 15 4 1 0 Level B 19 9 7 4 1 Level C 12 6 9 9 4 Moderate Earthquake . 2007 PEER Tall Building Project Task 2 .Performance Objectives 7 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 42 .One in Ten Chance of Occurring During the Life of the Structure Expected No. of Bldgs in each Structural Damage State Hypothetical Performance None/Slight Moderate Extensive Complete Collapse Level A 38 2 0 0 0 Level B 38 2 0 0 0 Level C 35 3 2 0 0 January 30.Likely to Occur at Least Once During the Life of the Structure Expected No.Damage and Loss Scenarios (expected damage to 40 tall buildings due major and moderate earthquake ground motions) Major Earthquake .
University of Tokushima. CA Atsushi Mikami. MACTEC. Seattle practice) Conclusion: ground motion reductions generally not being accounted for. URS. CA Ertugrul Taciroglu. Los Angeles C. Japan Farhang Ostadaan. Crouse. San Francisco. fn. LA practice • Free-field motion applied at base level (CB Crouse. identify knowledge shortcomings and research needs • JPS + ET drafts preliminary report (Jan 07) • Committee review • Final report ready Mar 07 State of Practice • Free field motions applied at ground level (M. UCLA Project Plan and Schedule • Group meeting (Nov 30 2006): review state-of-art/practice.Foundation Modeling Team Input Ground Motions for Tall Buildings with Subterranean Levels Jonathan P. LA practice) State of Practice • Free field motions applied at ground level (M. Los Angeles.Task 8 . Stewart University of California. to FIM ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 43 . otherwise practice is inconsistent Substructure Approach to Integrating SSI into Structural Response Analyses • Step 1: Kinematic interaction (FIM) • Step 2: Impedance function (stiffness & damping) • Step 3: Response analysis of structure with imp. Lew. Bechtel.B. Lew. Seattle. WA Marshall Lew.
00 10.4 0.6 0.00 [ Site 03 .00 | H3 | 0.8 Rocking rθFIM/u g 0. e/r = 2.00 2.0 0.2 0.8 Approximation Halfspace 1.Substructure Approach to Integrating SSI into Structural Response Analyses • Step 1: Kinematic interaction (FIM) • Step 2: Impedance function (stiffness & damping) • Step 3: Response analysis of structure with imp. fn.2 0.9 Translation 1.0 0.2 Comparisons to Data Humbolt Bay Power Plant.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.2 1.00 [ Site 03 .8 Approximation Halfspace Finite soil layer 1.00 0.00 4.0 0 2 4 6 a0=ωr/Vs a0 a0=ωr/Vs a0 Modified from Elsabee and Morray (1977) and Day (1977) Modified from Elsabee and Morray (1977) and Day (1977) Analytical Solutions 1.NS (pt) : Translation ] | H3 | 0. to FIM Transfer Functions to Obtain FIM • H(f)=uf(f)/ug(f) • Complex-valued • Analytical solutions: – Day (1977): rigid cylindrical foundation in elastic halfspace – Elsabee and Morray (1977): similar.4 0.4 3.0 0 2 4 6 0.8 Translation Approximation Halfspace Finite soil layer 1.0 0 2 4 6 0.2 rθFIM/u g 6 uFIM/ug uFIM/ug 0.00 1.00 2.2 0.00 1.0 0.2 Translation 1.00 4.2 1.0 0 2 4 6 0.6 0.2 3. but visco-elastic soil layer over rigid base θf uf ug • Finite element solutions .4 0.5 0.6 0.0 0 2 4 6 0.4 0.8 Rocking 1.00 8.4 0.00 a0=ωr/Vs a0 f (Hz) Modified from Elsabee and Morray (1977) and Day (1977) ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 44 .00 6.0 0.00 2.6 0.2 Analytical Solutions 1.0 0 e/r = 1 2 4 0.8 Rocking rθFIM/u g uFIM/ug 4.2 1.2 e/r = 0.SASSI Analytical Solutions 1.EW (pt) : Translation ] e/r = 2 0.
00 3.EW : Translation ] | H3 | 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 2. e/r = 0.00 First mode frequency f (Hz) Question Are kinematic interaction effects important for tall buildings? Question Are theoretical models based on rigid cylinders sufficient? • Effect concentrated at low periods • Likely not significant at first mode period • May affect loss estimates.9 4.NS : Rocking ] | H3 | 2.00 4.00 0.EW : Rocking ] | H3 | 2. Rotation results mixed.00 0.00 4.Comparisons to Data Lotung LSST.00 [ Site 46 .00 3.00 1.00 [ Site 46 .00 8.00 1.00 10.00 3.00 3. but not likely collapse potential • Resolve with simulations • Argument for: – Model captures basic physics of GM reduction with depth – Compares well to available data (translation).00 6.00 0.00 [ Site 46 .00 1.00 Another Approach • Seismic response of pile foundations • Free-field displacement imposed on pile [ Site 46 .NS : Translation ] | H3 | 2. • Argument against: – Model doesn’t account for flexible basement walls – Analyzed data set not exhaustive Proposed Research Tasks • Simulations – Investigate significance of KI – Evaluate impact of different modeling assumptions Proposed Research Tasks • Simulations • Data analyses – Comparisons of rigid cylinder models to data θf uf ug ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 45 .
Proposed Research Tasks • Simulations • Data analyses – Comparisons of rigid cylinder models to data – Verification of rigid-body displacement/rotation of foundation Will provide insight into significance of basement wall flexibility ugs θf uf e u gs = (?)eθ f + u f ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 46 .
wall flexure outside of intended yield locations. foundations.Capacity design issues for tall buildings WORKSHOP INPUT ON CAPACITY DESIGN Tom Sabol – column/beam strength ratios Mark Moore – wall flexure vs shear. foundation perimeter walls. Check drift limits CANTILEVER WALL Plastic hinge location CAPACITY DESIGN | CONCRETE WALLS RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 47 . Capacity design is a pre-requisite to nonlinear analysis. shear friction. etc. floor and roof diaphragms and collectors and connections. Code (DBE) level earthquake ÷ R factor Minimum base shear All other actions are designed to remain elastic under MCE level ground motions: • • Wall shear. and shear demand on walls below podium Mark Moore – wall yielding above designated hinge zone Mark Moore – flexural overstrength of walls and maximum demands on elastic elements January 2007 Joe Maffei RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE TWO-STAGE DESIGN Determine the strengths at hinging locations using the building code requirements • • CAPACITY DESIGN Engineer designs where and how nonlinear response will occur.
a shear failure is a story mechanism.2% drift V V Drift = D / hn PREVENT SLIDING SHEAR FAILURE PREVENT YIELDING OUTSIDE OF INTENDED HINGE LOCATION [ACI 2005] [Blue Book 402.DESIGN WALLS TO BE FLEXURE-GOVERNED COUPLED WALL Plastic hinge locations RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE PROTECT AGAINST SHEAR FAILURE Include inelasticdynamic amplification effects In a tall building. p. p. 66] [Paulay & Priestley.5% drift 2” component deformation = 0. 1-Story Building hn = 13’ 12-Story Building hn = 112’ 2” component deformation = 1.7. 393] ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 48 .
29 7600 29700 15500 22200 0. Pushover Wall Shear at Base Kips Wall Moment at 13th 1000xK-ft.4’ 0. Ft.21 760 CAPACITY DESIGN | MOMENT FRAMES DUAL SYSTEM FOUNDATIONS BASE MOMENT FRAME STRUCTURES Existing requirements for strong-column/weakbeam are usually not adequate to prevent story mechanisms. Σ Mn Columns below ≥ Σ Mn Beam left and right MB Blue Book Commentary C402.7’ 4. Min Max Mean m+σ c. 13th 2. WEAK-BEAM STRONG-COLUMN. Use Blue Book recommendation.1’ 6.43 5500 513 1080 900 1090 0. or NLRH analysis. WEAK BEAM Formula is based on the sum of moment strengths for the columns and beams framing into a level.o.5 MB MB MB MB MB MC MC MC MC ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 49 .ROOF 14 NLRH RUNS Roof Displ.v.2’ 5. MOMENT FRAME BEHAVIOR SEAOC Blue Book 1999 RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE GLOBAL STRONG-COLUMN.
DUAL SYSTEM Wall Moment Diagram Desired mechanism RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE DUAL SYSTEM BRACKET STIFFNESS ASSUMPTIONS AT BASE Upper-bound backstay Lower-bound backstay Undesirable mechanism RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE POSSIBLE FOCUS AREAS FOR TASK 7 Strong column weak beam Dual systems Appropriate capacity protection factors Other? ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 50 .
) • Interaction with supporting soils (Rocking.) – When is SSI really needed or helpful? – Have fun with that! • Multiple towers above a single base • Sloping sites with one side open. huh? – Modeling the diaphragm with openings for garage ramps. What about two sides? • Parking structure ramps acting as struts? • Purely elastic diaphragm(s) at all times? • Proper consideration of above grade system capacity (pushover. 2007 • Most tall buildings have at least one basement level • Often the below grade footprint is larger than the tower.) ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 51 . What’s the Big Deal? • Forces get HUGE if you try to assume a completely rigid support and try to take the forces out in one diaphragm – And this is just the code base shear • Try putting on the Omega factor or use the element capacity • Design the “below grade box” for the base reaction • Simple. etc. How Has this Been Done in the Past? • Assume rigid support at the ground floor level – Get huge transfer forces in ground floor diaphragm – Negative shears in interior walls and frames? So. etc. passive pressure. vertical transport. NLRH.Description of the Issue Base Load Transfer Issues Jim Malley TBI Workshop January 30. etc. • True force transfer is much more complicated (Ignorance is bliss!) • Relative stiffness between walls (or frames) and basement walls • Actual stiffness of diaphragm with openings properly addressed • Multiple below grade diaphragms – How much can they help with the transfer? Issues to be Considered in Base Transfer Issues to be Considered in Base Transfer (Cont. with solid basement retaining walls • Offsets therefore between SLRS and basement walls – Large force transfer required due to large discrepancy in stiffness So.
. the podium may have ramps and other complex geometric issues.) • …The main issue with the podium is that core openings change at these levels during the design. the openings complicate the core wall behavior. I'll close my rant on this issue by suggesting that at the least the approach of how and what to do be somewhat prescribed in regards to core openings. This we've all seen in our analysis. This generates shear reversals and very large demands on the diaphragm. the demands will not be as high as the analysis indicates. and SSI. But I doubt the designers or the peer reviewers really spend the time. on what parameters? Issues to be Considered in Base Transfer (Cont. or have a good understanding for each case of this complex issue.) • …In reality I believe this load path is not as stiff. fortunately. All these issues make me concerned that they get overlooked. and a parameter study. podium geometry issues (diaphragms. For a typical podium that has perimeter walls on two or three sides above grade and retaining walls on all four sides for the below grade structure. even after going through a peer review process.… Issues to be Considered in Base Transfer (Cont. and last but not least important SSI. • Simple.… Issues to be Considered in Base Transfer (Cont. walls and ramps). This can be somewhat overcome with detailed modeling of the diaphragms. walls.) • Are vertical offsets in ground floor diaphragm important? • What about the change in wall openings below grade? • Are the dreaded parameter studies needed to bound the solution? If so. indeed! ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 52 . shear reversals.Issues to be Considered in Base Transfer (Cont. the wall overturning resistance is partially afforded by coupling of slabs.) • …. Issues to be Considered in Base Transfer (Cont. I'm not convinced that a peer review solves these and other modeling issues.) • Podium Effects: Therein is one of my main concerns. and. What parameter studies I've seen do not address this in my humble opinion.
Static Force Procedure • Designing for an elastic code base shear and elastic drift limit will result in structures with vastly different damage potential and collapse probability P-Delta and Deterioration P-Delta and collapse safety depend on • Period of structure (elastic stiffness) • Post-elastic hardening stiffness • Monotonic and cyclic deterioration • Stiffness of gravity system Linear Dynamic Procedure • Still the same problems. PHs in columns) Minimum base shear TBI Workshop. hysteretic models. 1/30/07 TBI Workshop. General Structural Issues (and Frames) Helmut Krawinkler • Focus on selected topics such as stiffness. strength. 1/30/07 TBI Workshop. Develop recommendations for acceptance criteria 3. We have to address a number of global issues • • • • • P-Delta Cyclic deterioration Capacity design criteria Dynamic amplification (shear. Develop recommendations for modeling of structural components and systems. except accounts for higher mode effects Nonlinear Static Procedure (Pushover) • Problems with higher mode effects • Does not detect dynamic redistribution problems such as shear force amplification in wall structures • Does not capture collapse potential Nonlinear Response History Analysis • Addresses most of the issues. 1/30/07 TBI Workshop. axial forces. moments. BUT needs performance criteria and good judgment in component modeling TBI Workshop. deformation capacity.Objectives of Present Phase 1. 2. and implementation in software for nonlinear response-history (NLRH) analysis. 1/30/07 Systems to be Considered System Issues TALL BUILDINGS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Concrete core Steel braced frame core Steel shear wall core RC frames only Steel frames only Core with RC flat plate and columns (without PT) Core with RC flat plate and columns (with PT) Core with RC moment frames Core with steel moment frames Core with composite frames Core with outriggers Tubular structures RC Tubular structures – steel Others TBI Workshop. 1/30/07 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 53 . 1/30/07 Design/Assessment Options Equiv.
Peak-oriented model.6 0. 1/30/07 TBI Workshop..15 Maximum Roof Drift Angle.6. Peak Oriented Model. (no deterioration) δc /δy = 4.09 0.6. (2M c /Mp. αs =0.12 0. S1 .2 Median 84th Individual 0. Peak Oriented Model. LMSR-N.06 0. LMSR-N Amplification of Shear Demand in Tall Wall Structures Median of Shear Magnication @ 1 Story Shear Wall. 1/30/07 Median IDAs to Collapse P-Delta without and with Deterioration Sa (T1)/g vs Median Max ROOF DRIFT ANGLE.09 0.03 0.b )f. LMSR-N. λ=0 δc /δy = inf.a =Inf. θroof.1.1 N=18.a=Inf. δc/δy=inf. 1/30/07 TBI Workshop. θp=0.06 0.15 Maximum Roof Drift Angle.max TBI Workshop.c.09 0.03. λ=0 0.15 Maximum Roof Drift Angle.6. T1=3. 1/30/07 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 54 .9.6 IDAs to Collapse P-Delta Included.4 0. Strong Column Factor Over the Height. θpc=large st MAXIMUM STRONG COLUMN FACTOR 1 14 12 [Sa (T1 )/g]/γ 10 Individual responses Median 84th percentile 16th percentile 2/50 γ = 0.250 γ = 0.03.015. T1=3. T1 = 0. T=1.25 50/50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Max. γs.k. BH.c.max TBI Workshop.06 0.9 sec.1 N=18. Peak Oriented Model. θs. with Deterioration Sa(T1)/g vs MAXIMUM ROOF DRIFT ANGLE..6 0.k.IDAs to Collapse P-Delta Included.12 0. K1 .03 0. LMSR-N.125 0. 1/30/07 TBI Workshop.12 0.k.75 Sa/g 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 3 4 0.1 Sa (T1 )/g 0. γs.4 Dynamic Amplification • • • • Strong column criteria Amplification of story shear forces and moments in shear walls Amplification of axial forces (due to OTM amplification) Dynamic floor diaphragm forces 0. αc = -0.A.c. γ=0. T1 =0. γs. Mc/My=1. αc=-0. 1/30/07 Dependence of Strong Column Factor on Rµ 9-Story. .03 0. θ=0.5 10/50 0. θs.6sec.4 Sa(T1)/g Sa(T1)/g 0. N=16. BH. αs=0. ξ=0. ξ=5%. no Deterioration Sa(T1)/g vs MAXIMUM ROOF DRIFT ANGLE.. αc=N.2 Median 84th Individual 0 0 0. αc =var. δc /δy =var. γ=0. ξ=5%.10.05. λ=0 0. ξ=5%.1 N=18. γ=0.02. αs=0.max V1st/γW TBI Workshop.max 0 0 0. BH. N=9. T1 =3.. BH.03.2 0 0 0.a=Inf. δc/δy=4. γ=var.
peak oriented. Backbone Curve (based on monotonic behavior): F Fc Fy Load (kips) Fyp Fyn Ks Kpc 0 -5 δc Monotonic Fr = κFy Ke ISO -10 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 δy δp δc δr δpc δu δ Displacement (in) U. others) Bi-axial effects for columns TBI Workshop.081.047. 1/30/07 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 55 . San4Diego Load (kips) • “Collapse prevention” – – – – Displacement (in) TBI Workshop.2 kips. Deterioration Modeling TBI Workshop.General • • • • • • • • • • Representative material properties (central value.94.45 in. 1/30/07 TBI Workshop. measure of dispersion) Fiber element models and/or point plastic hinge models? Constant or variable “elastic” stiffness for “serviceability”? Effective elastic stiffness for “collapse safety” Strength Cap point (monotonic versus cyclic) Post capping tangent stiffness – is it needed? Cyclic deterioration – should it be considered? Hysteretic model (bilinear. αs=0.44 Acceptance Criteria • • Which performance levels? “Serviceability”: – – – – Strain? Crack width? Interstory drift? Damage measures Component deformation? Cyclic deterioriation? Probability of collapse (collapse fragility curves)? Incorporation of uncertainties? 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -4 -2 0 2 U. 1/30/07 TBI Workshop. 1/30/07 Capping point moves! TBI Workshop. pinched. αc=-0.C.Design Considerations • • • • • • • • • Minimum base shear Explicit consideration of dynamic amplification in design Are present R-factors meaningful for tall buildings? Explicit design for specific performance objectives Redundancy factor? Overstrength factor? Code design period? Accidental torsion? Limitations on height? Component Modeling Issues . αu=1. δy=0. 1/30/07 Structural Component Behavior 10 5 General Load-Deformation Model 1. δc/δy=5.C. 1/30/07 Structural Component Behavior UCI G12 OSB Fy=8. San Diego 2.
1/30/07 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 56 .Today’s Objectives • • • • Define scope Set priorities Define where to start and where to stop Focus is on TALL BUILDINGS TBI Workshop.
84 m (29 ft) 0 8. 5 500 400 300 200 100 0 -60 -40 -20 0 Pax (kN) 20 40 60 80 Top Flexural Displacement.5lw). Nonlinear strains tend to concentrate in a single element.07Ag f 'c Plat . Los Angeles Core confinement requirements (excessive) Variable Req’ts (e. Might need to calibrate them first (this is essential). demand variation Hybrid walls: R-value (always 5.5EIg RW2 Steel Fibers Typically use a more refined mesh where yielding is anticipated.68 m (5.88 ft) 5 @ 10.5 Fiber model – material stress vs strain 2 Concrete Fibers Lateral Load. 2007 Shear . and Roof Moderate Intensity Ground Motions – Loma Prieta Response Correlation Studies Ten Story Building in San Jose.openings. ∆top Test Analysis Stiffness: 0.5 1 1.Walls Issues.) 4. 0.5 0 10 Time (sec) 20 30 4 PLAN VIEW: CSMIP BUILDING 57356 3 Fiber Section Model Actual cross section Model Assessment – RW2 Lateral Flexural Drift (%) -2 200 -1. Plat (kN) 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -80 Pax ≈ 0. thus. California Roof longitudinal response – Loma Prieta 0.. ∆top (mm) 6 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 57 .Element/System Modeling . is needed to impose a “reality” check on the element size and integration points used. ACI-318.5 Analysis .5 ft) -1.g. typically use an element length that is approximately equal to the plastic hinge length (e. Walls Effective (cracked) linear stiffness DBE.84 m (29 ft) 1. Flange contribution Influence of concrete in tension Detailing John Wallace University of California.g.5) 2 Stiffness – SMIP Data Ten Story Building in San Jose. MCE.53 m (14.0. strain demand) Outside of the “hinge” zone (higher modes) PEER Center – Tall Buildings Workshop January 30. or at least a plastic hinge model. California Instrumented: Base.. Calibration of fiber model with test results. 6th Floor.5Ig Measured 8.97 m (36 ft) 1. bar size.5 0 0.5 -1 -0. however.5Ig including soil springs (modest) Displacement (in.
0% 2.075Ag f c Lateral Load.5 -1 -0. PERFORM: Flexure .Core/Flanged Walls General Wall Models/FE Models e..0% T T C εy X 2 Factor Distance along Flange from Web (mm) 11 12 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 58 . Plat (kN) 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300 -400 T Plat .5% 2.005 0 -0.025 0.5% 2.5% C 2.0% 2.005 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 Compressive Strain Limits Shear-Flexure Interaction TW2 Test Analysis 0.015 0.5 2 ' Pax ≈ 0. ∆top Test C Analysis T TW2 Pax (kN) C Thomsen & Wallace.5 1 1. ASCE JSE.5% 1.01 0.0% 2. April 2004.fiber model (2-directions) Shear .g.02 0.5 0 Fiber model – material stress vs strain Lateral Flexural Drift (%) 0. Displacement-based design of T-shape 750 500 250 0 9 10 Model Assessment – TW2 Flange Concrete Strain (LVDTs) 0.Trilinear backbone relation Flexibility to model complex wall geometry Flexure/Axial 7 Shear 8 Experimental Results: 4” thick Model Assessment – TW2 -2 400 -1.
o.4 0.2 5. kN-m after Priestley and Amaris.0 x Design Nonlinear 1.v.Nonlinear response 30 30 Linear SRSS/R Nonlinear 1.7 4. ft Wall Wall moment at base th floor.23 0 0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 (b) Summary of results BASE 13 Moment. kN (a) Building elevation 14 Link Beams Link Beams 15 16 Issues.5 x Design Nonlinear 2. Nonlinear static 2.0 x Design Design values? ROOF Roof drift. k 13 1000 x k-ft 7600 29700 15500 22200 0. m 20 20 10 10 13th Minimum Maximum Mean (m) m+σ c. shear. 2003 Shear.43 5500 513 1080 900 1090 0. Continued Link beams Calibration of models (Stiff/Strength/Detail) Steel encased design and detailing New ACI 318-08 detailing requirements Impact of post-tensioning on strength Testing – relatively small scale beams Upcoming Tests: 318-08 Details 12” x 15” 3 ft long beams (1/2 scale) Slab-column connections Punching 17 18 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 59 .21 760 Height.1 6.
8 0.4 0.6 0.01 ACI 318-05 21.2 0.3fpc)bod 0 0. ACI 103(4).05 0. Continued Cyclic load history Best fit relation Monotonic load history Best fit relation (All) Drift Ratio (Total Rotation) at Punching Ref: Kang & Wallace.09 Issues.11.025Agf'c (105 psi) P=0.08 0.) 19 ~1/3 scale shake table test specimen 20 PT Slab: Test Results 0. where Vc = (0.7 0.03 0.9 1 21 22 ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 60 .5 0. 2006 Beam-Column Frames impact of pt on beam strength Joint design (strut-&-tie) New anchorage systems Higher-axial load (P> 0.07 0.Test Results – Sliding Shear 100 P=0 P=0.06 0.05Agf'c (210 psi) Slab – Column Frames Wall Shear (kips) 50 0 -50 strong wall horizontal actuator ve rtical actuato r steel testin g fra me specimen vertical actuator strong floor -100 -4 -2 0 2 4 Lateral Top Displacement (in.3 0.04 0.29f'c1/2+0.35Agf’c) Biaxial behavior 0.5 Limit ASCE-41 w/continuity (Best-Fit Line) plus one σRes FEMA 356 0 Gravity Shear Ratio (Vg /φVc).1 0.02 0.
.Advance Feedback Advance Workshop Input Other Issues Jon A. I have some real concerns about how the information that comes out of this will be used and applied in practice. quantifiable acceptance criteria • Provide guiding design principles (i.e..…” − “We must ensure that we do not raise the bar so high that only a few can jump over it…” − “…we do not support an agenda that attempts to define a “how to” approach to specific systems and/or element design…” Other Input • General comments − We believe the TBI efforts should be clearly focused in four areas: • Define appropriate demand levels • Define performance expectations and consistent.” •“Other” Other Input • General comments − “…we have serious concerns about the particular direction and focus of Task Group 7 − “As a practitioner. capacity design strategies) • Provide modeling guidelines which promote consistency in the industry ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 61 . Heintz Applied Technology Council • More than 100 written comments • More than 500 individual issues • Categories − Integration with Performance Objectives − Foundation modeling − Capacity Design − Base Load Transfers − General Structural Issues − Element/System Modeling Advance Feedback Other Input • General comments − “There are probably an infinite number of technical questions that could be asked…” − “Your task list hits most of my favorites…” − “I applaud the effort to assemble this research topic and bring together the different stake holders to advance the state of the art.
…” Other Input • Peer Review − “the design of most tall buildings is controlled more by serviceability criteria such as interstory drift and perception to motion than strength limit states…that are not (and probably never will be) mandated by code… but are a matter of quality imposed on the building by an engineer and his client…” − “…we do not want a situation to develop where Peer Reviews are mandated and the guidelines for design acceptance are arbitrary or undefined…” Other Input • In Summary − “Distilling these [issues] into a manageable set so we can focus on the most important ones will be a significant. but necessary. I suggest requiring Peer Review and Plan Check be performed by separate entities. and defining the scope of each..Other Input • Performance − “What level of minimum seismic performance should we be designing Tall Buildings for?” − “What can be done so that the contribution to our cities is not a tall building stock that can not be economically repaired after an EQ?” − “Is it appropriate or necessary to have serviceability requirements for these structures?” Other Input • Performance − “I strongly believe that tall buildings should have a higher Importance Factor due to their high occupancy and cost…” − “It is easy to promote the emotional argument that tall buildings are “important” and therefore should be held to some higher standard. challenge…” − “I have great confidence that a consensus approach will yield guidelines that can be supported across the profession…” ATC-72 B: Plenary Presentations 62 .. or is it the reviewing engineers responsibility to identify deficiencies in the design?” − “…some jurisdictions are confused between peer review and plan check. it has not been scientifically demonstrated that a “problem” exists…” Other Input • Peer Review − “Is it the design engineers responsibility to show that every behavior of the building is correctly accounted for. and some consultants are offering to perform both. However.
505 pages plus proposed amendments) ABSTRACT: The tentative provisions in this document represent the results of a concerted effort by a multi-disciplinary team of 85 nationally recognized experts in earthquake engineering. was funded by NSF and NBS. was funded by NSF. ATC-3-2: The project. The provisions serve as the basis for the seismic provisions of the 1988 and subsequent issues of the Uniform Building Code and the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulation for New Building and Other Structures. (Published 1974. Brief descriptions of completed ATC projects and reports are provided below. as NTIS report No. This includes the development of guidelines and manuals. ATC-3-4: The report.Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information One of the primary purposes of the Applied Technology Council is to develop resource documents that translate and summarize useful information to practicing engineers. design procedures and parameter values were evaluated for future application. ATC-3: The report. “Comparative Test Designs of Buildings Using ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions”. which includes proposed amendments. although ATC project reports often serve as resource documents for the development of codes. was funded by NSF and NBS and was conducted as part of the Cooperative Federal Program in Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation. Applied Technology Council conducts projects that meet the following criteria: 1. Funding for projects is obtained from government agencies and taxdeductible contributions from the private sector. The project consisted of a study to develop and plan a program for making comparative test designs of the ATC3-06 Tentative Provisions. ATC-1: This project resulted in five papers that were published as part of Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation. COM-73-50188. Springfield. ATC-2: The report. ATC is not a code development organization. was published under a grant from ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 63 . Available through the ATC office. The project fosters the advancement of structural engineering practice. is available through the ATC office. The second printing of this document contains proposed amendments prepared by a joint committee of the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) and the NBS. amended 1982. standards and specifications. A cross section or consensus of engineering opinion is required to be obtained and presented by a neutral source. as well as the development of research recommendations for specific areas determined by the profession. Specific building designs. The primary audience or benefactor is the design practitioner in structural engineering. An Evaluation of a Response Spectrum Approach to Seismic Design of Buildings. Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings (ATC-3-06). (Published 1978. Eleven existing buildings of varying dimensions were redesigned according to the procedures. The second printing of this report. Available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). VA 22151. The project report was written to be used by the Building Seismic Safety Council in its refinement of the ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions. 1. 270 Pages) ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the applicability and cost of the response spectrum approach to seismic analysis and design that was proposed by various segments of the engineering profession. Redesign of Three Multistory Buildings: A Comparison Using ATC3-06 and 1982 Uniform Building Code Design Provisions. 5285 Port Royal Road. Building Science Series 46. proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). 2.
was published under a contract with HUD. Included in the report are recommendations to code implementing bodies. The Guidelines are based in part on shaking table tests of masonry construction conducted at the University of California at Berkeley Earthquake Engineering Research Center. as amended by a joint committee of the Building Seismic Safety Council and the National Bureau of Standards in 1982. Available through the ATC office. 38 pages) ABSTRACT: The report offers a concise methodology for the earthquake design and construction of single-story masonry dwellings in Seismic Zone 2 of the United States. The Home Builders Guide for Earthquake Design. The first phase provided for trial designs conducted for buildings in Los Angeles. and (5) presents recommendations including details and schedules for use in the field by construction personnel and building inspectors. (4) suggests procedures for efficient plan-checking. Available through the ATC office. Guidelines for Seismic Design and Construction of Single-Story Masonry Dwellings in Seismic Zone 2. wall evaluations. “Assistance for Second Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council”. easily understood text of the Guide is supplemented with illustrations and 46 construction details. (3) 64 presents construction details that do not require the designer to perform analytical calculations. The second phase provided for trial designs conducted for buildings in New York. 57 pages) ABSTRACT: This report is an abridged version of the ATC-4 report. (Published 1976. ATC-3-6: This project. 112 pages) ABSTRACT: This report evaluates the cost and technical impact of using the 1978 ATC-3-06 report. The Guidelines ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-72 . ATC-4: The report. state and federal agency representatives from throughout the United States. and Memphis. The evaluations are based on studies of three existing California buildings redesigned in accordance with the ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions and the 1982 Uniform Building Code. St. (Published 1980. ATC-3-5: This project. (Published 1981. Phoenix. Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings. Louis. Available through the ATC office. ATC-6: The report. 576 pages) ABSTRACT: This report presents the results of an in-depth effort to develop design and construction details for single-family residences that minimize the potential economic loss and life-loss risk associated with earthquakes. A Methodology for Seismic Design and Construction of Single-Family Dwellings. A brief description is included on how earthquake forces impact on houses and some precautionary constraints are given with respect to site selection and architectural designs. (Published 1984. ATC-4-1: The report. as defined by the 1973 Uniform Building Code. was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council to provide the services of the ATC Senior Consultant and other ATC personnel to assist the BSSC in the conduct of the first phase of its Trial Design Program. was published under a contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). dimensioned and constructed to resist earthquake forces. and Fort Worth. The report is written in simple language and includes basic house plans. academics. was published under a contract with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). was developed under a contract with HUD. Available through the ATC office. The concise. detail drawings. Seattle. The details are provided to ensure that houses contain structural features that are properly positioned. and material specifications. 210 pages) ABSTRACT: The Guidelines are the recommendations of a team of sixteen nationally recognized experts that included consulting engineers. (Published 1986. (2) sets forth suggested design criteria for conventional layouts of dwellings constructed with conventional materials. ATC-5: The report. The report: (1) discusses the ways structures behave when subjected to seismic forces.NSF. “Assistance for First Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council”. Seismic Design Guidelines for Highway Bridges. Chicago. was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council to provide the services of the ATC Senior Consultant and other ATC personnel to assist the BSSC in the conduct of the second phase of its Trial Design Program. Charleston. Available through the ATC office.
was published under a contract with FHWA. 220 pages) ABSTRACT: The Guidelines are the recommendations of a team of thirteen nationally recognized experts that included consulting engineers. ATC-8: This report. 1979 Imperial Valley. An Evaluation of the Imperial County Services Building Earthquake Response and Associated Damage. was funded by NSF. 231 pages) ABSTRACT: The report presents the results of an in-depth evaluation of the Imperial County Services Building. and summary reports on 21 bridges redesigned in accordance with the Guidelines. academics. include a preliminary screening procedure. (Published 1981. and potential retrofitting measures for the most common seismic deficiencies. applicable for use in all parts of the United States.S. was published under a grant from NSF. Guidelines for the Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms. (Published 1981. An Investigation of the Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Performance. ATC-7: The report. ATC-9: The report. was published under a grant from NSF.embody several new concepts that were significant departures from then existing design provisions. was funded by the U. Available through the ATC office. ATC-7-1: The report. (Published 1979. Available through the ATC office. and conclusions and recommendations pertaining to future building code provisions and future research needs. (Published 1984. (Published 1983. ATC-6-2: The report. Also included are recommendations for future research that were developed by the 43 workshop participants. state highway engineers. Also included are recommendations for future research that were developed by the 35 workshop participants. was published under a grant from NSF. a discussion of the factors affecting the seismic performance of buildings. an example demonstrating the use of the Guidelines. Proceedings of a Workshop on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges. New Zealand and Portugal. and federal agency representatives. connection details and design examples are included in the Guidelines. 190 pages) ABSTRACT: Guidelines are presented for designing roof and floor systems so these can function as horizontal diaphragms in a lateral force resisting system. Available through the ATC office. Available through the ATC office. Also included are special design requirements for various retrofitting measures. The report contains a review and evaluation of earthquake damage to the building. Available through the ATC office. a comparison of the requirements of various building codes as they relate to the building. a review and evaluation of the seismic design. The Guidelines. Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines for Highway Bridges. Geological Survey (USGS). California. 302 pages) ABSTRACT: The report includes seven papers on state-of-the-practice and two papers on recent research. a 6-story reinforced concrete frame and shear wall building severely damaged by the October 15. earthquake. ATC-6-1: The report. Proceedings of a Workshop on the Design of Prefabricated Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Loads. ATC-10: This report. 400 pages) ABSTRACT: The report includes eighteen state-of-the-art papers and six summary papers. 114 pages) ABSTRACT: The report contains an in-depth analytical evaluation of the ultimate or limit capacity of selected representative building framing types. In 1991 the guidelines were adopted by the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials as a standard specification. was published under a grant from NSF. 625 pages) ABSTRACT: The report includes 23 state-ofthe-art and state-of-practice papers on earthquake resistance of highway bridges. (Published 1982. Included in the Guidelines are an extensive commentary. methods for evaluating an existing bridge in detail. (Published 1980. and a summary and comparison of ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 65 . Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms. Seven of the twenty-three papers were authored by participants from Japan. Available through the ATC office. Analytical procedures. Available through the ATC office. The Proceedings also contain recommendations for future research that were developed by the 45 workshop participants.
and in-depth discussions of design implications of recent research results. Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California. Topics discussed include bridge design philosophy and loadings. The report also describes the inventory information essential for estimating economic losses and the methodology used to develop loss estimates on a regional basis. 259 pages) ABSTRACT: This document contains 19 stateof-the-art papers on ground motion. Available through the ATC office. Available through the ATC office. Available through the ATC office. was developed under a contract with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). and 35 New Zealand bridge design engineers and researchers. and structural design issues presented by prominent engineers and earth scientists in an ATC seminar. Included are summaries of research projects being conducted in both countries as well as state-ofthe-practice papers on various aspects of design practice. case studies using base isolation. Available through the ATC office.-New Zealand Workshop on Seismic Resistance of Highway Bridges. was published under a grant from NSF. Included are discussions of the limitations of 66 ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-72 . Included are damage probability matrices for 78 classes of structures and estimates of time required to restore damaged facilities to preearthquake usability. structural response. Also included are research recommendations developed at a 3-day workshop in New Zealand attended by 16 U. was co-funded by the USGS and the NSF. design of columns. Degenkolb Memorial Endowment Fund. commercial. footings. (Published 1982. ATC-13-1: The report. (Published 1984. was published under a grant from NSF. More than 125 research reports published since 1971 are reviewed and evaluated in this report. ATC-13: The report. 492 pages) ABSTRACT: This report presents expertopinion earthquake damage and loss estimates for industrial. was published under a grant from NSF. Commentary on the Use of ATC-13 Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for Probable Maximum Loss Studies of California Buildings.seismic design and seismic risk parameters currently in widespread use. The main theme of the papers is to identify the critical aspects of ground motion and building performance that currently are not being considered in building design. piles. (Published 1986. Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame Joints: Implications of Recent Research for Design Engineers.S. Comparison of United States and New Zealand Seismic Design Practices for Highway Bridges. Critical Aspects of Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Damage Potential. (Published 1983. ATC-12-1: This report. ATC-10-1: This report. (Published 1985.S. residential. geotechnical aspects of foundation design. was developed with funding from ATC’s Henry J. (Published 2002. 272 pages) ABSTRACT: This report contains written versions of the papers presented at this 1985 workshop as well as a list and prioritization of workshop recommendations. and testing of bridge components and bridge systems. Available through the ATC office. Proceedings of Second Joint U. summaries of research developments. strong-motion data acquisition and interpretation. abutments and retaining structures. 66 pages) ABSTRACT: This report provides guidance to consulting firms who are using ATC-13 expert-opinion data for probable maximum loss (PML) studies of California buildings. The report contains reviews of current and past design practices. The preparation of the report included a consensus process involving numerous experienced design professionals from throughout the United States. utility and transportation facilities in California. The report also contains conclusions and recommendations of working groups convened after the Seminar. ATC-11: The report. Available through the ATC office. 184 pages) ABSTRACT: This document presents the results of an in-depth review and synthesis of research reports pertaining to cyclic loading of reinforced concrete shear walls and cyclic loading of joints in reinforced concrete frames. ATC-12: This report. seismic retrofitting. 270 pages) ABSTRACT: The report contains summaries of all aspects and innovative design procedures used in New Zealand as well as comparison of United States and New Zealand design practice. seismic analysis techniques.
(Published 1994. Available through the ATC office. repair and retrofit of earthquake damaged buildings. (2) ATC-13 Beta damage distribution parameters for model building types.the ATC-13 expert-opinion data. 360 pages) ABSTRACT: This report contains 20 technical papers presented at this San Diego. acceptable earth-quake damage. (Published 1992. ATC-15-1: The report.S.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building Structural Design and Construction Practices. Proceedings of Third U. Available through the ATC office. Proceedings of Second U. workshop in August. was published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural Consultants Association.-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building Structural Design and Construction Practices. written for practicing structural engineers. 1986.S. and the issues associated with using the data for PML studies. S. Japan. active damping systems. California workshop in September. wind-resistant design. Proceedings of Fifth U. Also included are three appendices containing information and data not included in the original ATC-13 report: (1) ATC-13 model building type descriptions. Proceedings of Fourth U. ATC-15-3: The report. 370 pages) ABSTRACT: This report. by practitioners and researchers from the U. (Published 1987. data collection procedures. Available through the ATC office. 484 pages) ABSTRACT: This report contains 22 technical papers presented at this Kailua-Kona. (Published 1987. Included are state-of-the-practice papers and case studies of actual building designs and information on regulatory. Available through the ATC office.S. including methodology for estimating the expected performance of standard. and summaries of working group conclusions and recommendations. Included are papers on performance goals/acceptable ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 67 . Japan. 317 pages) ABSTRACT: The report contains detailed technical papers describing design practices in the United States and Japan as well as recommendations emanating from a joint U. Included are state-of-thepractice papers on various topics. 1992.S. and base isolation and passive energy dissipation devices. and Peru. Available through the ATC office. preliminary and detailed analysis procedures. The report also contains an overview of the history and objectives of the Japan Structural Consultants Association. and New Zealand. a detailed description of the building classification system. ATC-15-4: The report. including nonstructural considerations. was published under a grant from NSF. China. The report contains a state-of-practice review. workshop in July. seismic loading criteria. beam-column joints in reinforced concrete buildings.S. and licensing issues. including Architectural Institute of Japan recommendations for design. was published under a grant from NSF. 1990. and Japanese design. by practitioners and researchers from the U. was published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural Consultants Association. Available through the ATC office..-Japan workshop held in Hawaii in March. by practitioners and researchers from the United States. describes a methodology for performing preliminary and detailed building seismic evaluations. 1988. 412 pages) ABSTRACT: This report contains 23 technical papers presented at this San Francisco workshop in August.S. ATC-14: The report. (Published 1989. Included are detailed descriptions of new seismic design methods for buildings in Japan and case studies of the design of specific buildings (in both countries).-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building Seismic Design and Construction Practices. and special construction. and (3) PML values for ATC-13 model building types. Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings. base-isolated buildings. contractual. Hawaii.S. ATC-15: The report. 358 pages) ABSTRACT: This report contains 21 technical papers presented at this Tokyo. including braced steel frame buildings. summaries of comparative U. Japan. Included are papers on postearthquake building damage assessment. ATC-15-2: The report. Comparison of Seismic Design Practices in the United States and Japan. was developed under a grant from the NSF. was published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural Consultants Association. and example case studies. 1984. and Japan.Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building Structural Design and Construction Practices. nonstandard. (Published 1984.
ATC-18-1: The report. structural steel and steel-concrete interface details. modeling. seismic evaluation. philosophy and criteria. 151 pages) ABSTRACT: Prepared as part of NCEER Project 112 on new highway construction. retaining wall structures. as well as recommendations for future bridge seismic design guidelines. (Published 1986. and long-term reliability. and foundations. was funded by FEMA and was conducted by a joint venture of ATC. 1997. Available through the ATC office. was published under a grant from NSF. Proceedings of a Seminar on Seismic Isolation. modeling. where approximately 50 earthquake specialists met to identify the major tasks and goals for reducing the earthquake hazards posed by existing nonfederal buildings nationwide. a rational ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-72 . quality control. DC 20472.damage in seismic design. The plan was developed on the basis of nine issue papers presented at the workshop and workshop working group discussions. Available through the ATC office. The report documents the basis for current R values. modeling of pile footings and drilled shafts. passive energy dissipation systems. was developed under a contract from the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER. damage-avoidance design of bridge piers. active control systems and hybrid systems.W. and detailing for structural movements in tunnels. and analysis. 500 “C” Street. 478 pages) ABSTRACT: The report contains 42 papers describing the state-of-the-art and state-of-thepractice in base-isolation and passive energydissipation technology. liquefaction mitigation methodologies. quality control for design and construction. (Published 1995. ATC-17-1: This report. Available through the ATC office. which are used to reduce the seismic forces associated with elastic response to obtain design forces. and (5) system response. and summaries of working group discussions and recommendations. S. repair and upgrading. Included are invited theme papers and 68 competitively selected papers on issues related to seismic isolation systems. determining structural importance. 1999. Included are papers describing case studies in the United States. Also included is a proposed 5-year research agenda that addresses the following specific issues: (1) strong ground motion. Seismic Design Criteria for Bridges and Other Highway Structures: Current and Future. Passive Energy Dissipation and Active Control. (4) life cycle cost methodology. The project considered bridges. Proceedings of a Seminar and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive Energy Dissipation. abutments. column design.. the Building Seismic Safety Council and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. (Published. and analysis. Available through the ATC office. Washington. applications and developments worldwide. construction influences on design. foundations and soils. was published under a grant from NCEER and NSF. (3) materials. ATC-17: This report. 70 pages) ABSTRACT: This report addresses structural response modification factors (R factors). (Published 1993. Available through the ATC office. “Development of a 5-Year Plan for Reducing the Earthquake Hazards Posed by Existing Nonfederal Buildings”. seismic design procedures and case studies. seismic isolation and passive energy dissipation. how R factors are used for seismic design in other countries. The project involved a workshop in Phoenix. Impact Assessment of Selected MCEER Highway Project Research on the Seismic Design of Highway Structures. (Published. ATC-18: The report. Arizona. and structural and ground motion issues. was developed under a grant from NCEER and FHWA. (2) design criteria. ATC-16: This project. 136 pages) ABSTRACT: The report provides an in-depth review and assessment of 32 research reports emanating from the MCEER Project 112 on new highway construction. The Workshop Proceedings and Five-Year Plan are available through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Structural Response Modification Factors was funded by NSF and NCEER. abutment design. ATC-19: The report. Topics covered include: ground motion issues. recent innovations in technology development. and recommends future directions for code development. design of irregular structures. tunnels. formerly NCEER) and FHWA. 841 pages) ABSTRACT: The 2-volume report documents 70 technical papers presented during a twoday seminar in San Francisco in early 1993. this report reviews current domestic and foreign design practice.
Available through the ATC office. Available through the ATC office. P. Available through the ATC office. civil and structural engineers. disaster workers. Gallagher Associates. and field safety. ATC-20-3: The report. Written specifically for volunteer structural engineers and building inspectors. the report includes rapid and detailed evaluation procedures for inspecting buildings and posting them as “inspected” (apparently safe. and the research necessary to improve the reliability of engineered construction designed using R factors. was developed under a contract from the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). 230 PowerPoint slides with Speakers Notes) ABSTRACT: This Training CD is intended to facilitate the presentation of the contents of the ATC-20 and ATC-20-2 reports in a 4½-hour training seminar. Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings. Each case study is illustrated with photos and describes how a building was inspected and evaluated for life safety. mobile homes. masonry. green placard). evaluation procedures. (Published 2002. “limited entry” (yellow) or “unsafe” (red). Second Edition.means for decomposing R into key components. The Second Edition has been updated to include improved versions of the posting placards and evaluation forms. Second Edition. 143 pages) ABSTRACT: This report. was funded by ATC and R. The report is intended to be used as a training and reference manual for building officials. a companion Field Manual for the ATC-20 report. hazardous materials. architects. or from FEMA by contacting 1800-480-2520. and evaluation procedures for nonstructural elements. Addendum to the ATC-20 Postearthquake Building Safety Procedures was published under a grant from the NSF and funded by the USGS. Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings. a framework (and methods) for evaluating the key components of R. Available through the ATC office (Published 2004. as well as more detailed information on steel moment-frame buildings. structural basics. nonstructural elements. summarizes the postearthquake safety evaluation procedures in a brief concise format designed for ease of use in the field. It also includes new information on barricading and provides a list of internet resources pertaining to postearthquake safety evaluation. Case Studies in Rapid Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings. and geotechnical hazards. and includes a completed safety assessment form and placard. Topics covered include: posting system. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook. (Published 1995. and others who may be asked to perform safety evaluations after an earthquake. was funded by Applied Technology Council. schematic drawings and textual information. (Published 2002. 295 pages) ABSTRACT: This report contains 53 case studies using the ATC-20 Rapid Evaluation procedure. wood frame. Available through the ATC office. geotechnical hazards. ATC-20-2: The report. including a revised yellow placard (“restricted use”) and procedures that are based on an in-depth review and evaluation of the widespread application of the ATC-20 procedures following five earthquakes occurring since the initial release of the ATC-20 report in 1989. ATC-20: The report.g. and steel frame structures. 152 pages) ABSTRACT: This report provides procedures and guidelines for making on-the-spot evaluations and decisions regarding continued use and occupancy of earthquake damaged buildings. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) and FEMA. ATC-20-1: The report. concrete. was developed under a contract from FEMA. and manufactured housing. 161 pages) ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 69 . Available through the ATC office (Published 1989. 94 pages) ABSTRACT: This report provides updated assessment forms. as FEMA 154 Second Edition. placards. hospitals). Also included are special procedures for evaluation of essential buildings (e.. ATC-21: The report. ATC-20-T: The Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings Training CD was developed by FEMA to replace the 1993 ATC-20T Training Manual that included 160 35-mm slides. (Published 1996. building inspectors. The Training CD contains 230 slides of photographs.
(Published 1988. ATC-21-T: The report. was developed under a contract from FEMA. (Published 2002. The methodology. and (3) summaries of evaluations of ATC-14 conducted by the National Center for Earthquake Engineering ATC-72 70 ATC Projects and Report Information . (2) guidance in identifying these types of buildings. 148 pages and PowerPoint presentation on companion CD) ABSTRACT: This training manual and CD is intended to facilitate the presentation of the contents of the FEMA 154 report (Second Edition). revised by ASCE for FEMA and published as FEMA 310: Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings – a Prestandard in 1998. utilizes the information and procedures developed for the ATC-14 report and documented therein. the scoring system has been revised and the Handbook has been shortened and focused to ease its use. a companion volume to the ATC-22 report. 117 pages) ABSTRACT: Included in this report is the technical basis for the updated rapid visual screening procedure of ATC-21. Available through the ATC office. Second Edition. and (2) a detailed description of the development effort leading to the basic structural hazard scores and the score modifiers. ATC-21-2: The report. in case of a damaging earthquake. was developed under a contract from FEMA. a companion volume to the first edition of the ATC-21 and ATC-21-1 reports. are (1) a review and evaluation of existing buildings seismic evaluation methodologies. revised by BSSC and published as FEMA 178: NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings in 1992. on the basis of their major exterior features. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings: Supporting Documentation. Available through the ATC office. Earthquake Damaged Buildings: An Overview of Heavy Debris and Victim Extrication. in 2003). 362 pages. revised and published as ASCE 31-03. 211 pages. or of severe curtailment of community services. ATC-21-1: The report. building behavior. ATC-22-1: The report. was developed under a contract from FEMA. Virginia. 160 pages) ABSTRACT: Included in this report. Application of the methodology identifies those buildings that are potentially hazardous and should be analyzed in more detail by a professional engineer experienced in seismic design. which has been field tested in several programs nationwide. The screening procedure utilizes a methodology based on a "sidewalk survey" approach that involves identification of the primary structural load-resisting system and its building material. was developed under a contract with FEMA. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Training Manual Second Edition. as FEMA 155 Second Edition. The training materials consist of 120 slides in PowerPointTM format and a companion training presentation narrative coordinated with the presentation. building scores. The handbook includes checklists. In the Second Edition. occupancy and falling hazards. A Handbook for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (Preliminary). (Originally published in 1989. was developed under a contract from FEMA. ATC-22: The report. building types. Topics covered include: description of procedure. (Published 1989. or from FEMA by contacting 1-800-480-2520. and implementation. is state-of-theart information on (1) the identification of those buildings that might collapse and trap victims in debris or generate debris of such a size that its handling would require special or heavy lifting equipment. including (1) a summary of the results from the efforts to solicit user feedback. a standard of the American Society of Civil Engineers. and assignment of a basic structural hazards score and performance modifiers based on the observed building characteristics. (2) results from field tests of the ATC-14 methodology. Available through ASCE.ABSTRACT: This report describes a rapid visual screening procedure for identifying those buildings that might pose serious risk of loss of life and injury. (Published 2004. and (3) the types and life capacities of equipment required to remove the heavy portion of the debris that might result from the collapse of such buildings. and sketches designed to assist the user. 95 pages) ABSTRACT: Included in this report. Reston. Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: Supporting Documentation. ABSTRACT: The ATC-22 handbook provides a methodology for seismic evaluation of existing buildings of different types and occupancies in areas of different seismicity throughout the United States. diagrams.
The methodology has been designed for use by water system operators. available through the ATC office) ATC-26-3 Report. United States Postal Service Procedures for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings (Interim) (Completed 1991) ATC-26-2 Report. U. presentation of test results.S. Data Analysis and Interpretation. Available through the ATC office. (Published 1991. water systems. Postal Service (USPS). was developed under a contract from FEMA. Vulnerability estimates and impacts developed are presented in terms of estimated first approximation direct damage losses and indirect economic losses. Postal Service National Seismic Program. was developed under a contract from the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). ATC-26: This project. was developed under a contract from FEMA. Summary of Results. General Acute Care Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for California. ATC developed and submitted to the USPS the following interim documents. ATC-25-1: The report. 58 pages) ABSTRACT: This report summarizes results from a seismic survey of 490 California acute care hospitals. A Model Methodology for Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of Disruption of Water Supply Systems. The report contains recommendations and companion commentary pertaining to loading histories. 147 pages) ABSTRACT: This report contains a practical methodology for the detailed assessment of seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of water supply systems. The recommendations are written specifically for experiments with slow cyclic load application. Application of the methodology enables the user to develop estimates of direct damage to system components and the time required to restore damaged facilities to preearthquake usability. Available through the ATC office. a summary of the data. and emergency service facilities (hospitals. (Published 1992. available through the ATC office) ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 71 . fire and police stations).Research (State University of New York at Buffalo) and the City of San Francisco. (Published 1992. and NSF. 57 pages) ABSTRACT: This report provides guidance for most cyclic experiments on components of steel structures for the purpose of consistency in experimental procedures. Part A: Survey Description. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER). Postal Service Seismic Program (completed 1990) ATC-26-1 Report. 133 pages. was funded under a contract with the U.S. (Published 1991. and other aspects of experimentation. ATC-23A: The report. 221 pages. gas and liquid fuel supply systems. Field Manual: Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Postal Buildings (Interim) (Published 1992. Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the Conterminous United States. Lifelines considered include electric systems. 377 pages) ABSTRACT: Included in this report are tabulations of raw general site and building data for 490 acute care hospitals in California. most of which pertain to the seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of USPS facilities: ATC-26 Report. Part B: Raw Data. Procedures for Postdisaster Safety Evaluation of Postal Service Facilities (Interim) (Published 1991. State of California. and an illustrative discussion of data analysis and interpretation that has been provided to demonstrate potential applications of the ATC-23 database. Cost Projections for the U. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Available through the ATC office. 440 pages) ABSTRACT: Documented in this report is a national overview of lifeline seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption. is a companion document to the ATC-23A Report and was developed under the above-mentioned contract from OSHPD. Guidelines for Seismic Testing of Components of Steel Structures. transportation systems. Available through the ATC office. S. ATC-23B: The report. (Published 1991. General Acute Care Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for California. Under this project. ATC-25: The report. Suggested measures for mitigation of seismic hazards are also provided. Included are a description of the survey procedures and data collected. was jointly funded by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). Available through the ATC office. ATC-24: The report.
and research. research and technology. Included are papers describing current practice. United States Postal Service Procedures for Building Seismic Rehabilitation (Interim) (Completed 1992) ATC-26-5 Report. and Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities. was developed under a grant from NCEER and NSF. 470 pages) ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 35 papers describing state-of-the-art technical information pertaining to the seismic design and performance of equipment and nonstructural elements in buildings and industrial structures. Available through the ATC office. Development of Recommended Guidelines for Seismic Strengthening of Existing Buildings. and advanced technologies. and seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of conventional and essential facilities. practice. ATC-30: The report. and Performance of Nonstructural Components. Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design. The papers were presented at a seminar in Irvine. Included in 72 ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-72 . earthquake performance. development of new seismic qualification methods. United States Postal Service Guidelines for Building and Site Selection in Seismic Areas (Interim) (Completed 1992) ATC-28: The report. computer centers. coordination with other efforts. and testing. design analysis. ATC-29-1: The report. California. and museums with fragile/valuable collection items).g. economic. Proceedings of a Seminar and Workshop on Seismic Design and Performance of Equipment and Nonstructural Elements in Buildings and Industrial Structures. (Published 2003. was developed under a contract with FEMA. Performance. and nonstructural element issues. seismic design and retrofit.ATC-26-3A Report. in 2003. Available through the ATC office. and retrofit of nonstructural components in critical facilities (e. seismic design issues relating to industrial and hazardous material facilities. was developed under a grant from MCEER and NSF. seismic design codes. codes and regulations. cosponsored by ATC and the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. performance.. system qualification and testing. and procedures for commercial and institutional buildings. analytical and experimental investigations. ATC-29-2: The report. Proceedings of Workshop for Utilization of Research on Engineering and Socioeconomic Aspects of 1985 Chile and Mexico Earthquakes. 113 pages) ABSTRACT: This report documents the findings of a 1990 technology transfer workshop in San Diego. was developed under a grant from the NSF. Available through the ATC office. The paper topics include: observed performance in recent earthquakes. The purpose of the Seminar was to present state-of-the-art technical information pertaining to the seismic design. including hospitals. historic buildings. Retrofit. Phase I: Issues Identification and Resolution. Proceedings of a Seminar on Seismic Design. Issues addressed include: implementation and format. risk and performance evaluation. Available through the ATC office. issues related to the development of specific provisions. California. seismicity and mapping. (Published 1998. manufacturing plants with especially hazardous materials. 574 pages) ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 43 papers presented at a seminar in Newport Beach. standards. available through the ATC office) ATC-26-4 Report. 114 pages. was developed under a grant from NCEER and NSF. The technical papers address the following topics: current practices and emerging codes. ATC-29: The report. California in 1998. 518 pages) ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 38 technical papers presented at a seminar in San Francisco. (Published 1991. California in 1990. hospitals. The report also includes a summary of a proposed 5-year research agenda for NCEER. (Published 1992. legal and political. 150 pages) ABSTRACT: This report identifies and provides resolutions for issues that will affect the development of guidelines for the seismic strengthening of existing buildings. Field Manual: Post Flood and Wind Storm Safety Evaluation of Postal Buildings (Interim) (Published 1992. and code development needs for specific elements and systems. Available through the ATC office. (Published 1992. social. engineering philosophy and goals.
Topics include: design concepts. Issues addressed include: seismic hazard analysis. was funded by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). ductile component design. Commentary.) FEMA 273 and portions of FEMA 274 have been revised by ASCE for FEMA as FEMA 356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. was developed under a grant from NCEER and NSF. formerly NBS) and funded by the USGS.the report are invited papers and working group recommendations on geotechnical issues. seismic loading. primarily unreinforced masonry and concrete tilt-up buildings. 440 pages. into rehabilitation. 365 pages. All buildings were located in the areas affected by the 1987 Whittier Narrows. The recommendations are based on recent research in the field of bridge seismic design and the performance of Caltrans-designed bridges in the 1989 Loma Prieta and other recent California earthquakes. state-of-the-art guidance for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. a companion to the ATC-32 Report. response modification factors (R factors). NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 273). new linear static and nonlinear static analysis procedures. was developed under a contract from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST. ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 73 . and conventional bearings. California. Available through the ATC office. 215 pages) ABSTRACT: This report provides recommended revisions to the then-current Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications (BDS) pertaining to seismic loading. (Published 1996. (Published 1992. for FEMA. search and rescue. including potential recommendations that showed some promise but were not adopted. foundation design. were developed under a contract with the Building Seismic Safety Council. Available through the ATC office. emergency response planning. 295 pages. such as seismic isolation and energy dissipation systems. and reconstruction policy issues. earthquakes. Available through the ATC office. performance objectives. simplified analysis procedures. S. The FEMA 273 Guidelines contain several new features that depart significantly from previous seismic design procedures used to design new buildings: seismic performance levels and rehabilitation objectives. A Critical Review of Current Approaches to Earthquake Resistant Design. 1995. (Published 1996. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 274). California. documents pertinent background material and the technical basis for the recommendations provided in ATC-32. redundancy and configuration. ATC-32: The report. these documents provide nationally applicable. architectural and urban design considerations. Example Applications. and procedures for incorporating new information and technologies. codes and standards of practice. and Example Applications of the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 276). 492 pages. ATC-31: The report. Available through FEMA by contacting 1-800-480-2520 (Published 2000. and component design. simplified and systematic rehabilitation methods. 75 pages) ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the results from an investigation of the effectiveness of 229 seismically retrofitted buildings. ATC-34: The report. capacity protected design. (Published 1997. 509 pages) ABSTRACT: Developed over a 5-year period through the efforts of more than 60 paid consultants and several hundred volunteer reviewers. Special attention is given to design issues related to reinforced concrete components. reinforcing details. (Published. earthquake collateral hazards. Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Resource Document. Evaluation of the Performance of Seismically Retrofitted Buildings. foundation design. modeling of structural components. structural response issues. was funded by Caltrans. steel components. ATC-32-1: The report. 94 pages) ABSTRACT: This report documents the history of U. ATC-33: The reports. and steel bridges. quantitative specifications of component behavior. Available through the ATC office. including ARS design spectra. Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional Recommendations. dynamic analysis. Guidelines. also available on CD-ROM) ABSTRACT: This report. structural response analysis. foundations. focusing primarily on the strengths and deficiencies of current code approaches. and 1989 Loma Prieta.
(Published. was developed under a cooperative agreement with USGS. and research activities to enhance development and transfer of information that is vital to engineering practice. 120 pages) ABSTRACT: The report provides a program of recommended “technology transfer” activities for the USGS.nonstructural component design. Earthquake. and infilled buildings. (Published 1994. easy-to-access format written for practicing design professionals. The following four key issues were the focus of the workshop: ground motion parameters. probabilistic versus deterministic basis. and the entry of the survey data into an electronic 74 ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-72 . (Published 1994. included are recommendations pertaining to management actions. including codes. 478 pages) ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 22 technical papers describing state-of-the-art information on regional earthquake risk (focused on five specific regions—Northern and Southern California. the selection of the surveyed areas. 154 pages) ABSTRACT: These Proceedings document the technical presentations and findings of a workshop in Los Angeles in 1995 on several key issues that affect the preparation and use of national earthquake ground motion maps for design. new techniques for estimating strong ground motions as a function of earthquake source. and northeastern North America). Proceedings: National Earthquake Ground Motion Mapping Workshop. (Published 1999. Proceedings: Workshop on Improved Characterization of Strong Ground Shaking for Seismic Design. the Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC). reference site conditions. The report also identifies goals that a new seismic code should achieve. was developed under a cooperative agreement with USGS. Database on the Performance of Structures near Strong-Motion Recordings: 1994 Northridge. and site parameters. ATC-38: This report. ATC-37: The report. was developed under a cooperative agreement with USGS. 492 pages) ABSTRACT: This report describes the state of knowledge of the earthquake performance of nonductile concrete frame. ABSTRACT: The report documents the earthquake performance of 530 buildings within 1000 feet of sites where strong ground motion was recorded during the 1994 Northridge. Central United States. Geological Survey Research Results into Engineering Practice was developed under a cooperative agreement with the USGS.S. California. 1994. Available through the ATC office. was developed with funding from the USGS. 75 pages) ABSTRACT: These Proceedings document the technical presentations and findings of a workshop in Rancho Bernardo. The project required the development of a suitable survey form. OES. and the Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS). was developed in conjunction with the Structural Engineers Association of California and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering under a contract from the California Seismic Safety Commission (SSC). Pacific Northwest. Available through the Seismic Safety Commission as Report SSC 94-03. the training of licensed engineers for the survey. Available through the ATC office. Included are summaries of 90 recent research efforts with key results and conclusions in a simple. Available through the ATC office. earthquake (31 recording sites in total). ATC-35-2: The report. The workshop focused on identifying needs and developing improved representations of earthquake ground motion for use in seismic design practice. California. and the treatment of uncertainty in seismic source characterization and ground motion attenuation. Enhancing the Transfer of U. shear wall. (Published 1997. (Published 2000. travel path. and new developments specifically applicable to geotechnical engineering and the seismic design of buildings and bridges. Available through the ATC office. communications with practicing engineers. ATC-35-3: The report. Available through the ATC office. ATC-35-1: The report. California in 1997 on the Ground Motion Initiative (GMI) component of the ATC-35 Project. ATC-35: This report. with CD-ROM containing complete database). and risk and reliability. Review of Seismic Research Results on Existing Buildings. 260 pages. Proceedings of Seminar on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design Practice.
available through the ATC office) SAC-95-06. retrofit strategies. 2 volumes. Background Reports: Metallurgy. was funded by FEMA and conducted by a Joint Venture partnership of SEAOC. available through the ATC office) SAC-95-05. and CUREe. and CUREe. 1994 (Published 1995. Experimental Investigations of Materials. Case Studies of Steel Moment Frame Building Performance in the Northridge Earthquake of January 17. 612 pages) ABSTRACT: This 2-volume report provides a state-of-the-art methodology for the seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Interim Guidelines: Evaluation. fatalities and injuries. response limits. Phase 2. quality assurance procedures. Available through the ATC office. 1994 (Published 1995. available through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800480-2520) ATC-41-1 (SAC Joint Venture. Fracture Mechanics. Under this Phase 1 program SAC prepared the following documents: SAC-94-01. Experimental Investigations of Beam-Column Subassemblages. was developed under a contract from the California Seismic Safety Commission. 1994 (Published 1995. available through the ATC office) SAC-95-09. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. September 1994 (Published 1994. ATC. 179 pages. The full database is contained in the ATC-38 CD-ROM. ATC-40: The report. Moment Connections and Frame systems. Behavior (FEMA 288 report) (Published 1995. (Published. seismic hazard. Connection Test Summaries (FEMA 289 report) (Published 1996. and nonstructural components. the structural framing system and other important structural characteristics.relational database. available through the ATC office) SAC-95-07. Weldments and Nondestructive Examination Techniques (Published 1995. Phase 2): This project. available through the ATC office) SAC-95-02. Northridge Earthquake of January 17. 215 pages. ATC. Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Structures. Part 1 and 2 (Published 1996. 2 volumes. Steel Moment-Frame Connection Advisory No. 3 (Published 1995. available through the ATC office) SAC-95-04. 310 pages. 900 pages. The report and CD also contain strong-motion data. available through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) SAC-96-01. such as liquefaction. Phase 1): This project. Welding. was funded by FEMA and OES and conducted by a Joint Venture partnership of SEAOC. 144 pages. 155 pages. Los Angeles. modeling rules. Phase 1. and displacement time histories. Program to Reduce the Earthquake Hazards of Steel Moment-Resisting Frame Structures. nonstructural characteristics. Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment-Frame Structures (FEMA 267 report) (Published 1995. 1996. Under this Phase 2 program SAC prepared the following documents: ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 75 . geotechnical effects. and acceleration response spectra. available through the ATC office) SAC-96-02. The ATC-38 database includes information on the structure size. nonlinear static analysis procedures. determination of deficiencies. and estimated time to restore the facility to its pre-earthquake usability. available through the ATC office) SAC-95-01. performance characteristics (damage). 1994 (Published 1995. 924 pages. age and location. Specific guidance is provided on the following topics: performance objectives. available through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800480-2520) SAC-95-03. 315 pages. Characterization of Ground Motions During the Northridge Earthquake of January 17.” ATC-41 (SAC Joint Venture. available through the ATC office) SAC-95-08. Analytical and Field Investigations of Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17. 1994 (Published 1995. 260 pages. 361 pages. foundation effects. In 1997 this report received the Western States Seismic Policy Council “Overall Excellence and New Technology Award. Surveys and Assessment of Damage to Buildings Affected by the Northridge Earthquake of January 17. Proceedings of the Invitational Workshop on Steel Seismic Issues. velocity. Parametric Analytical Investigations of Ground Motion and Structural Response. including acceleration. Repair. 274 pages.
81 pages) ABSTRACT: Developed by 26 nationally recognized specialists in earthquake engineering. Interim Guidelines Advisory No.) SAC-99-01. Evaluation of EarthquakeDamaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings. 322 pages. Interim Guidelines Advisory No. FEMA-355E. and superseded by FEMA-350 to 353. Printed version also available through ATC). available through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) FEMA-351. and superseded by FEMA350 to 353. Printed version also available through ATC). The documents have been developed specifically for buildings with primary lateral-force-resisting systems consisting of concrete bearing walls or masonry bearing walls. Repair Document. FEMA-355C. available through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) FEMA-353. State of the Art Report on Past Performance of Steel Moment-Frame Buildings in Earthquakes. available on CD-ROM through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800480-2520. methods for performance loss determination. (Published 2000. 185 pages. and vertical-loadbearing concrete frames or steel frames with concrete or masonry infill panels. (Published 2000. FEMA-355F. 150 pages. (Published 2000. Printed version also available through ATC). (Published 2000. 271 pages. damage evaluation procedures. 1998. available on CD-ROM through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520. Printed version also available through ATC). superseding FEMA-267A). available through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) FEMA-354. and The Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings (FEMA 308). available on CD-ROM through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520. State of the Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking. (Published 2000. available on CD-ROM through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520.SAC-96-03. Technical Resources. Technical Resources (FEMA 307). State of the Art Report on Connection Performance. A Policy Guide to Steel MomentFrame Construction. (Published 2000. (Published 2000. FEMA-355D. Recommended Postearthquake Evaluation and Repair Criteria for Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. 347 pages. 107 pages. Evaluation of Earthquake-Damaged Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings. 180 pages. Recommended Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade Criteria for Existing Welded Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. Evaluation Procedures Manual. State of the Art Report on Base Materials and Fracture. printed versions available through FEMA by contacting 1-800-480-2520 (Published. Printed version also available through ATC). FEMA-355B. (Published 2000. (Published 2000. Printed version also available through ATC). 190 pages. available on CD-ROM through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520. The intended audience includes design engineers. available through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) FEMA-352. 210 pages.) FEMA-350. and an indepth discussion of policy issues pertaining to the repair and upgrade of earthquake damaged buildings. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. (Published 2000. these documents provide field investigation techniques. available through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520) FEMA-355A. ATC-43: The reports. (Published 2000. State of the Art Report on Welding and Inspection. Recommended Specifications and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Steel Moment-Frame Construction for Seismic Applications. ATC-72 76 ATC Projects and Report Information . 190 pages. State of the Art Report on Performance Prediction and Evaluation of Steel Moment-Frame Structures. (Published 1999. Available on CD-ROM through ATC. 270 pages. 292 pages. were developed for FEMA under a contract with the Partnership for Response and Recovery. available on CDROM through ATC and by calling FEMA: 1-800-480-2520. Basic Procedures Manual (FEMA 306). a Joint Venture of Dewberry & Davis and Woodward-Clyde. 1 Supplement to FEMA 267 Interim Guidelines (FEMA 267A Report) (Published 1997. 100 pages. 27 pages. repair guides and recommended repair techniques. 2 Supplement to FEMA-267 Interim Guidelines (FEMA 267B Report. 180 pages.
36 pages) ABSTRACT: Written for an intended audience of design professionals and regulators. concrete and masonry construction. 164 pages and Part II. including storm surges and waves. and lifeline performance. 294 pages) ABSTRACT: The Recommended Guidelines are based on significant enhancements in the state of knowledge and state of practice resulting from research investigations and lessons learned from earthquakes over the last 15 years. provisions are nationally applicable and cover all seismic zones. Liquefaction Study Report. and appendices developed to be compatible with the existing load-and-resistance-factor design (LRFD) provisions for highway bridges published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Safety Evaluation of Buildings After Wind Storms and Floods was developed with funding from ATC. and government agencies. Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. as well as all bridge construction types and materials. information on how to deal with owners and occupants of damaged buildings. The Guidelines consist of specifications. the ATC Endowment Fund. They reflect the latest design philosophies and design approaches that will result in highway bridges with a high level of seismic performance. and nonstructural components. ATC-49: The 2-volume report. building code requirements. the Manual is intended to be used by structural engineers. It contains detailed discussions on: (1) recommended procedures to evaluate liquefaction potential and lateral spread effects. path. Engineers. Hurricane Fran. and construction. and rainfall amounts. September 5. Part I: Specifications and Part II: Commentary and Appendices. Available through the ATC office (Published 1999. ATC-49-1: The document. this report contains information on hurricane size. Included are detailed. Also included are procedures for Rapid Safety Evaluation. including the effect of debris acting as missiles. ATC-44: The report. and the Institute for Business and Home Safety (Published 2004. the curriculum contains training materials pertaining to the seismic design and retrofit of wood-frame buildings. and nonstructural risks. The new. building inspectors. ABSTRACT: The Field Manual provides guidelines and procedures to determine whether damaged or potentially damaged buildings are safe for use after wind storms or floods. and the role of erosion. and Inspectors. observations and interpretations of damage to buildings. (2) ground mitigation design approaches and procedures to evaluate the beneficial effects of pile pinning in straining ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 77 . or if entry should be restricted or prohibited. 208 pages) ABSTRACT: This report documents a comprehensive study of the effects of liquefaction and the associated hazards — lateral spreading and flow. instructional material (lessons) and a series of multi-part Briefing Papers and Job Aids to facilitate improvement in the quality of seismic design. inspection. the role of beach nourishment in reducing wave energy and crest height. Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. Part I. (Published 1997. procedures for Detailed Safety Evaluation. was developed under a contract with the California Seismic Safety Commission and prepared by a Joint Venture partnership of ATC and SEAOC. 132 pages). Advice is provided on evaluating structural. building regulatory officials. ATC-48 (ATC/SEAOC Joint Venture Training Curriculum): The training curriculum. were developed under the ATC/MCEER Joint Venture partnership with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (Published 2003. ATC-45: The Field Manual. The Path to Quality Seismic Design and Construction for Architects. Built to Resist Earthquakes. illustrated. and others involved in postdisaster building safety assessments. 1996: Reconnaissance Report. commentary. and example applications of the procedures. information on field safety for those making damage assessments. Formatted as an easy-to-use pocket guide. was developed under the ATC/MCEER Joint Venture partnership with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (Published 2003. geotechnical. North Carolina. was funded by the Applied Technology Council. Available through the ATC office.building owners. 314 pages) ABSTRACT: Bound in a three-ring notebook. coastal impacts. forces on structures. updated.
design of abutments. Available through the ATC office. was developed under a contract with the Department of Civil Protection.-Italy Collaborative Procedures for Earthquake Emergency Response Planning for Hospitals in Italy. including cost implications. S. The report contains: (1) descriptions of current procedures and concepts for emergency response planning in the United States and Italy. Italy. (Published 2000. 154 pages) ABSTRACT: Developed by a 14-person team of hospital seismic safety specialists and regulators from the United States and Italy. The design examples contain flow charts and detailed step-by-step procedures. was developed under a contract with Servizio Sismico Nazionale of Italy (Italian National Seismic Survey.-Italy Collaborative Recommendations for Improved Seismic Safety of Hospitals in Italy. (b) requirements for nonstructural components in California and for buildings regulated by the Office of U.-Italy Collaborative Guidelines for Bracing and Anchoring Nonstructural Components in Italian Hospitals. the report provides an overview of hospital seismic risk in Italy.lateral spread.S. design displacements and checks. and consideration of liquefaction.S. and one in the central U.S. (3) specific recommendations pertaining to twenty-seven different types of 78 ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-72 . S. (Published 2002. Recommended U. design of structural components. to be implemented through the use of a Postearthquake Inspection Notebook and demonstrated through the application on two representative hospital facilities. (3) recommended procedures for earthquake emergency response planning and postearthquake assessment of hospitals. postearthquake inspection training. ATC-51: The report. 316 pages) ABSTRACT: The report contains two design examples that illustrate use of the Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. ATC-49-2: The report. was developed under a contract with Servizio Sismico Nazionale of Italy (Italian National Seismic Survey). ATC-51-2: The report. determination of seismic design and analysis procedure. and (4) study conclusions. an assessment of implications of predicted lateral spread/flow using a pushovertype analysis. Recommended U. Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges. NSS). determination of design forces. design of foundations.) that provide an assessment of liquefaction effects based on several types of analyses. (2) an overview of relevant procedures for both countries for evaluating and predicting the seismic vulnerability of buildings. six recommended shortterm actions and four recommended long-term actions for improving hospital seismic safety in Italy. These design examples are the eighth and ninth in a series originally developed for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to illustrate the use of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Division 1-A Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges. U. and the mitigation of seismic hazards. including: preliminary design. including procedures for postearthquake inspection. 164 pages) ABSTRACT: The report supports one of the short-term recommendations — implement bracing and anchorage for new installations of nonstructural components — made in the first phase of the ATC-51 project. ATC-51-1: The report. The report contains: (1) technical background information. and (4) recommendations for emergency response training. (3) study results from two bridge sites (one in the western U. and development and evaluation of structural and/or geotechnical mitigation alternatives. 120 pages) ABSTRACT: The report addresses one of the short-term recommendations — planning for emergency response and postearthquake inspection — made in the first phase of the ATC-51 project. including an overview of nonstructural component damage in prior earthquakes.(2) generalized recommendations for assessment of nonstructural components and recommended performance objectives and requirements. and (c) current seismic evaluation standards in the United States. determination of elastic seismic forces and displacements. Design Examples. Foreign Buildings. Available through the ATC office. basic requirements. and supplemental information on (a) hospital seismic safety regulation in California. was developed under the ATC/MCEER Joint Venture partnership with funding from the Federal Highway Administration (Published 2003. (Published 2003. S.
and (3) identification. (Published 2000. Primer for Design Professionals: Communicating with Owners and Managers of New Buildings on Earthquake Risk. (b) possible improvements or modifications that would render it more useful to the earthquake engineering community and other potential large-scale structural research communities. The Phase II tasks include: (1) development of a reliable estimate of the size and nature of the impacts a large earthquake will have on San Francisco. was developed under a contract with FEMA. and (6) guidance pertaining to the design and selection of devices for seismic anchorage. The document also provides guidance on the form. “Development of a Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS). type. and options for addressing multiple-degree-of-freedom effects. ATC defined the tasks to be conducted under Phase II. Written principally for design professionals (architects ATC Projects and Report Information 79 . Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. ATC-55: The report. including new procedures for incorporating soil-structure interaction effects. ATC-54: The report. ATC-56: The report. bridges. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. and extent of data to be collected from structures in the vicinity of strong-motion recordings. 222 pages) ABSTRACT: The report addresses two main topics: (1) effective means for using computer-generated ground motion maps ATC-72 (ShakeMaps) in postearthquake emergency response. and the Capacity Spectrum Method. (4) design examples that illustrate in detail how a structural engineer evaluates and designs the retrofit of a nonstructural component. and dams to determine the potential for earthquake-induced damage in those structures. An example application of the recommended nonlinear static analysis procedures is included to illustrate use of the procedures in estimating the maximum displacement of a model building. Assessment of the NIST 12Million-Pound (53 MN) Large-Scale Testing Facility. and pertinent supplemental information. as detailed in the ATC-40 Report. completed in 2000. definition. FEMA 389. including guidance on replacement of strongmotion instruments in/on and near buildings. Available through the ATC office. was developed under a contract with NIST. Issues addressed include: (a) the merits of continuing operation of the facility. Under Phase I. The report also addresses improved application of nonlinear static analysis procedures in general. ATC-53: The report. Available through FEMA or the ATC office. as detailed in the FEMA356 Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. (5) additional seismic design considerations for nonstructural components. Maryland. 12-million pound (53 MN) Universal Testing Machine located at NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg. Available through the ATC office.nonstructural components. ATC-52: The project. 194 pages) ABSTRACT: The report has been developed to facilitate the process of educating building owners and managers about seismic risk management tools that can be effectively and economically employed by them during the building development phase—from site selection through design and construction—as well as the operational phase. FEMA 440. 152 pages) ABSTRACT: The report presents the results of a four year study carried out to develop guidelines for improved application of the Coefficient Method. Guidelines for Using Strong-Motion Data and ShakeMaps in Postearthquake Response. a multi-year ATC effort that commenced in 2001. was conducted under a contract with the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection. (2) development of technically sound consensus-based guidelines for the evaluation and repair of San Francisco’s most vulnerable building types. was developed under a contract with FEMA. and (2) procedures for rapidly evaluating (on a near-real-time basis) strongmotion data from ground sites and instrumented buildings. and ranking of other activities to reduce the seismic risks in the City and County of San Francisco. and dams. (Published 2005. Available through FEMA or the ATC office. (Published 2004. City and County of San Francisco”. was developed under a contract with the California Geological Survey. and (c) identification of specific research (seismic and non-seismic) that might require the use of this facility in the future. 44 pages) ABSTRACT: This report documents the findings of an ATC Technical Panel engaged to assess the utility and viability of a 30-yearold. (Published 2005. bridges.
This Program Plan offers background on current code design procedures. Volume 2. While the guidance provided focuses principally on explosive attacks and design strategies to mitigate the effects of explosions. Volume 1. and Interim Protocol II. Qualitative discussions are provided on the following topics: terrorist threats. (Published 2003. which should be used for the determination of performance characteristics of components whose behavior is primarily controlled by the application of seismic forces or seismic-induced displacements. The report defines a much-expanded problem-focused knowledge development. (Published 2004. (Published 2006.Example Problems. Reports prepared under this project include: FEMA 445. design guidance. this report provides commentary on the wind provisions in the 2000 and 2003 editions of 80 ATC Projects and Report Information ATC-72 . ATC-56-1: The report. 238 pages. multi-phase effort funded by FEMA. 102 pages) ABSTRACT: The report was developed to provide a framework for eliminating the technology transfer gap that has emerged within the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) that limits the adaptation of basic research knowledge into practice. the document also addresses design strategies to mitigate the effects of chemical. Primer for Design of Commercial Buildings to Mitigate Terrorist Attacks – Providing Protection to People and Buildings. Available through the ATC office. and cost considerations. Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings. ATC-57: The report. (ATC). 106 pages) ABSTRACT: The report provides guidance to building designers. FEMA 427. (Published 2003. and higher education facilities (universities). 113 pages. was developed under a contract with FEMA. Next-Generation PerformanceBased Seismic Design Guidelines.and structural engineers). Shake Table Testing. ATC-60: The 2-volume report. and outlines the tasks and projected costs for a two-phase program to develop next-generation performance-based seismic design procedures and guidelines. introduces performance-based seismic design concepts. weapons effects. (3) emerging concepts in performance-based seismic design. the document introduces and discusses (1) seismic risk management and the means to develop a risk management plan. instructors and anyone who designs and/or analyzes structures for wind. and (4) seismic design and performance issues related to six specific building occupancies—commercial office facilities. identifies improvements needed in current seismic design practice. ATC-58: This project. (2) guidance for identifying and assessing earthquake-related hazards during the site selection process. local schools (kindergarten through grade 12). healthcare facilities. Development of NextGeneration Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines for New and Existing Buildings. synthesis and transfer program to improve seismic design and construction practices. or sensitive to strain-rate effects. Volume 1 and Volume 2 . building damage. available through FEMA or the ATC office). Two interim protocol types are provided in this document: Interim Protocol I. Interim Testing Protocols for Determining the Seismic Performance Characteristics of Structural and Nonstructural Components (Published 2007. are proposed: (1) systematic support of the seismic code development process. Quasi-Static Cyclic Testing. with a total of five Program Elements. Two subject areas. 131 pages. 245 pages) ABSTRACT: Written for designers. and (2) improve seismic design and construction productivity. was developed under a contract with NIST. SEAW Commentary on Wind Code Provisions. FEMA 461. is a multi-year. owners and state and local governments to mitigate the effects of hazards resulting from terrorist attacks on new buildings. light manufacturing facilities. occupancy types. The Missing Piece: Improving Seismic Design and Construction Practices. was developed by the Structural Engineers Association of Washington (SEAW) and edited and published by the Applied Technology Council. available through FEMA or the ATC office). building code officials. commercial retail facilities. which should be used to assess performance characteristics of components whose behavior is affected by the dynamic response of the component itself. Available through the ATC office. biological and radiological attacks. design approach. or whose behavior is velocity sensitive. Available through FEMA or the ATC office.
serviceability. The criteria for acceptable levels of floor vibration are based on human sensitivity to the vibration. 12 pages) ABSTRACT: The technical brief offers guidelines for entering damaged buildings under emergency conditions during the first hours and days after the initial damaging event. was developed with funding from the Henry J. It also stimulated widespread interest in laboratory testing of wood-frame structures. 5000-lb. ATC-72 ATC Projects and Report Information 81 . Degenkolb Memorial Endowment Fund. high winds. including a technical and historic overview of wind codes and discussions on a broad range of topics: basic wind speed. hurricanes. Earthquake Aftershocks − Entering Damaged Buildings. capacity hold-down devices. unusual wind loading configurations. Minimizing Floor Vibration. importance factors. wind tunnel tests applied to design practice. (Published. Available through the ATC office (Published 1995. whether it is caused by human behavior or machinery in the structure. prescriptive provisions. Degenkolb Memorial Endowment Fund of the Applied Technology Council. design for wind pressures on main wind-force-resisting systems. 12 pages) ABSTRACT: The technical brief inventories and describes the available regional liquefaction hazard maps in the United States and gives information on how to obtain them. Available through the ATC office. Volume 2 consists of appendices containing over a dozen example problems with solutions. The report provides a description of the testing program and a summary of results. (Published 1996. ATC-R-1: The report. and wind design of equipment and non-building systems. ATC TechBrief 2: The ATC TechBrief 2. was developed under a contract with the United States Geological Survey. ATC TechBrief 1: The ATC TechBrief 1. 1999. Available through the ATC office.the International Building Code (IBC). was developed with funding from ATC’s Henry J. miscellaneous and non-building structures. Volume 1 contains the main body of the commentary. including comparisons of drift ratios found during testing with those specified in the seismic provisions of the 1991 Uniform Building Code. was developed under a contract with the United States Geological Survey. glass and glazing. ATC Design Guide 1: The report. and the 1998 and 2002 editions of ASCE Standard No. The document includes guidance for estimating floor vibration properties and example calculations for a variety of currently used floor types and designs. 9-inch. (Published 1996. 64 pages) ABSTRACT: This report documents ATC's first self-directed research program: a series of static and dynamic tests of narrow plywood wall panels having the standard 3. 64 pages) ABSTRACT: Design Guide 1 provides guidance on design and retrofit of floor structures to limit transient vibrations to acceptable levels. 7. wind pressures on components and cladding of structures. gust response.5-to-1 height-to-width ratio and anchored to the sill plate using typical bolted. The report served as a catalyst for changes in code-specified aspect ratios for narrow plywood wall panels and for new thinking in the design of hold-down devices. Available through the ATC office. Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear Walls. Liquefaction Maps. and tornadoes. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. exposure and topographic effects.
Applied Technology Council Directors
ATC Board of Directors (1973-Present) Milton A. Abel (1979-1985) James C. Anderson (1978-1981) Thomas G. Atkinson* (1988-1994) Steven M. Baldridge (2000-2003) Albert J. Blaylock (1976-1977) David C. Breiholz (2004-2006) Patrick Buscovich* (2000-2009) James R. Cagley* (1998-2004) H. Patrick Campbell (1989-1990) Arthur N. L. Chiu* (1996-2002) Anil Chopra (1973-1974) Richard Christopherson* (1976-1980) Lee H. Cliff (1973) John M. Coil* (1986-1987, 1991-1997) Eugene E. Cole (1985-1986) Anthony B. Court (2001-2004) Edwin T. Dean* (1996-2002) Robert G. Dean (1996-2001) James M. Delahay* (1999-2005) Gregory G. Deierlein (2003-2009) Edward F. Diekmann (1978-1981) Burke A. Draheim (1973-1974) John E. Droeger (1973) Nicholas F. Forell* (1989-1996) Douglas A. Foutch (1993-1997) Paul Fratessa (1991-1992) Sigmund A. Freeman (1986-1989) Barry J. Goodno (1986-1989) Ramon Gilsanz (2005-2008) Mark R. Gorman (1984-1987) Melvyn Green (2001-2002) Lawrence G. Griffis* (2002-2008) Gerald H. Haines (1981-1982, 1984-1985) William J. Hall (1985-1986) Ronald O. Hamburger (1999-2000) Robert W. Hamilton (2002-2005) James R. Harris ((2004-2010) Gary C. Hart (1975-1978) Robert H. Hendershot (2000-2001) Lyman Henry (1973) Richard L. Hess (2000-2003) James A. Hill (1992-1995; 2003-2004) Ernest C. Hillman, Jr. (1973-1974) Eve Hinman (2002-2008)
Ephraim G. Hirsch (1983-1984) William T. Holmes* (1983-1987) Warner Howe (1977-1980) Edwin T. Huston* (1990-1997) David Hutchinson (2004-2010) Jeremy Isenberg (2002-2005) Paul C. Jennings (1973-1975) Carl B. Johnson (1974-1976) Edwin H. Johnson (1988-1989, 1998-2001) Stephen E. Johnston* (1973-1975, 1979-1980) Christopher P. Jones* (2001-2008) Joseph Kallaby* (1973-1975) Donald R. Kay (1989-1992) T. Robert Kealey* (1984-1988) H. S. (Pete) Kellam (1975-1976) Helmut Krawinkler (1979-1982) Steven Kuan (2006-2009) James S. Lai (1982-1985) Mark H. Larsen (2003-2006) Gerald D. Lehmer (1973-1974) Marc L. Levitan (2006-2010) James R. Libby (1992-1998) Charles Lindbergh (1989-1992) R. Bruce Lindermann (1983-1986) L. W. Lu (1987-1990) Walter B. Lum (1975-1978) Kenneth A. Luttrell (1991-1999) Newland J. Malmquist (1997-2001) Melvyn H. Mark (1979-1982) John A. Martin (1978-1982) Stephen McReavy (1973) John F. Meehan* (1973-1978) Andrew T. Merovich* (1996-2003) David L. Messinger (1980-1983) Bijan Mohraz (1991-1997) William W. Moore* (1973-1976) Manny Morden (2006-2009) Ugo Morelli (2004-2006) Gary Morrison (1973) Robert Morrison (1981-1984) Ronald F. Nelson (1994-1995) Joseph P. Nicoletti* (1975-1979) Bruce C. Olsen* (1978-1982) Gerard Pardoen (1987-1991)
Stephen H. Pelham* (1998-2005) Norman D. Perkins (1973-1976) Richard J. Phillips (1997-2000) Maryann T. Phipps (1995-1996, 1999-2002) Sherrill Pitkin (1984-1987) Edward V. Podlack (1973) Chris D. Poland (1984-1987) Egor P. Popov (1976-1979) Robert F. Preece* (1987-1993) H. John Price (2004-2010) Lawrence D. Reaveley* (1985-1991, 2000-2003) Philip J. Richter* (1986-1989) John M. Roberts (1973) James Robinson (2005-2008) Charles Roeder (1997-2000) Spencer Rogers (2007-2010) Arthur E. Ross* (1985-1991, 1993-1994) C. Mark Saunders* (1993-2000) Walter D. Saunders* (1975-1979) Lawrence G. Selna (1981-1984) Wilbur C. Schoeller (1990-1991) Samuel Schultz* (1980-1984) Daniel Shapiro* (1977-1981)
Jonathan G. Shipp Howard Simpson* Mete Sozen William E. Staehlin Scott Stedman Donald R. Strand James L. Stratta Edward J. Teal W. Martin Tellegen John C. Theiss* Charles H. Thornton* James L. Tipton Ivan Viest Ajit S. Virdee* J. John Walsh Robert S. White James A. Willis* Thomas D. Wosser Loring A. Wyllie Edwin G. Zacher Theodore C. Zsutty *President
(1996-1999) (1980-1984) (1990-1993) (2002-2003) (1996-1997) (1982-1983) (1975-1979) (1976-1979) (1973) (1991-1998) (1992-2000, 2005-2008) (1973) (1975-1977) (1977-1980, 1981-1985) (1987-1990) (1990-1991) (1980-1981, 1982-1986) (1974-1977) (1987-1988) (1981-1984) (1982-1985)
ATC Executive Directors (1973-Present)
Ronald Mayes Christopher Rojahn (1979-1981) (1981-present) Roland L. Sharpe (1973-1979)
Pelham & Partners Edwin T. Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP Contributors Daniel & Lois R.Applied Technology Council Sponsors. Lawrence D. Inc. . Thornton John M. Cardona Computers & Structures. Moore & Associates Nabih Youssef & Associates Supporters Rutherford & Chekene Nishkian Menninger Patrick Buscovich & Associates Barrish. Theiss Baldridge & Associates Raj and Helen Desai Lionakis Beaumont Design Group Miyamoto International Structon Weidlinger Associates William Bevier Structural Engineer. Shapiro Hinman Consulting Engineers Omar D. Inc. & Sharon K. and Contributors Sponsors Structural Engineers Association of California Charles H. Harman & Associates CBI Consulting. Magnusson Klemencic Associates John C. Supporters. Reaveley American Institute of Steel Construction. Inc. Huston Baker Concrete Construction Cagley & Associates Cagley. Cagley Sang Whan Han Walter P. Coil Degenkolb Engineers Burkett & Wong James R. Inc.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.